The Beechcraft Bonanza: A Collection of Notes

Bob Siegfried (author) Howard G Page (editor)

September 20, 2015

ii
Preface

I started the beech-owners mailing list in 1996. Out of the many fine members, one
stood out. Bob Siegfried (a.k.a ”Old Bob”) is known not only for his wisdom and both
knowledge of aviating and the Beechcraft Bonanza, but also for his wonderfully succinct
writing style. I started this compilation over 15 years ago, got overwhelment with his
thousands of posts, set it aside and forgot about it. Meeting Old Bob at Oshkosh this
past summer brought new enthusiasm to the project. I hope everyone enjoys reading
this as mush as I have.
Howard G Page
Burlingame, CA, September, 2015

iii
iv
Contents

1 AIRMAN 1
1.1 AIRMAN-APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Go Around Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Approach Engine RPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Approach Engine RPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Approach Speed and Approach Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Go Aroung Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Selection Partial Flaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
High Drag Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Go Around Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Circling Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Backup GS Desirability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Changing Tanks and Pre Landing Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Circling Approachs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Circling Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Crosswind Landings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Crosswind Landings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Demonstrated Crosswind Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Descent Below MDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Descent Below MDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

v
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Crosswing Landing - Fuel Unporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

GS Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
GUMP Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Go Around Configuration - Baron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Go Around Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Approach Airspeed - Greater Than Normal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Approach Airspeed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Interesting Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Night Landings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Night Landings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Reporting ”Procedure Turn Inbound” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Missed Approach - Nav Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Visual Decent Point (VDP) Usefulness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
1.2 AIRMAN-MISC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Aileron Rolls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Aileron Rolls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Closing Cabin Door In Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Closing Door In Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Determining the Speed of an Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Determining the Speed of an Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Finding Traffic Hidden by the Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Flap Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Flap Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Flying ”Agressively” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Flying a Proper Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Flying a Proper Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Novel Method to Stop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Operational Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Required Equipment for IFR Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

vi
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Routing/Clearences and Aircraft Heading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Routing/Clearences and Aircraft Heading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
T&B vs. Turn Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Tail Wiggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Tail Wiggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Tail Wiggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Tail Wiggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Tail Wiggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Touch & Go’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Touch and Go’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Touch and Go’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Use of Flaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Use of Flaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
1.3 AIRMAN-SAFETY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Airframe Ice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Airframe Ice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Airframe Ice and OAT Ram Rise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Backup T&B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Bird Strike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Closing Door In Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Cranking Down the Gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Electrical System Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Electrical System Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Emergencies and Backup Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Emergency IMC Descent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Emergency Landing: Gear Up or Down? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Endurance and Evaluating One’s Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Engine Failure and Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Failed Attitude Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

vii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Failed Turn Coordinator and T&B’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Failure Modes and Backup Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Frozen Pitot Tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Gear Up Landing: Paved or Turf Runway? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Gear Up Landing: Paved or Turf Runway? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Gear Up Landing: Paved or Turf Runway? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Gear Up landing: Flaps Up or Down? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
IFR Flight Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Is a VFR Bonanza Pilot Safe? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Itzhak Jacoby NTSB Factual Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Lighting Strike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Loss of Airspeed Indicator/Heated Pitot Tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Loss of Control - Stop the Turn! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Loss of Control - Stop the Turn! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Loss of Control - Stop the Turn! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Loss of Control - Stop the Turn! (Demonstrating) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
One Main Landing Gear Won’t Extend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Partial Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Post Accident Blues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Recognizing Failed Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Recognizing Failed Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Recognizing Failed Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Risk and Additional Pilot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Risk and Comfort Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Safety and Design Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
See and Avoid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
See and Avoid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Single Verses Twin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Standby Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

viii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Stopping The Turn with a T&B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

T&B Verses Turn Coordinator Verses AI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Throttle Stuck Open . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Use of GPS as Backup Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Verifying Instrument Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Water in Static System and Instrument Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
1.4 AIRMAN-TAKEOFF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Adverse Yaw Induced By the Differential Action of the Aileron . . . . . . 180
Takeoff in an A36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Use of Flaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Use of Flaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Use of Flaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Use of Flaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Use of Flaps/Short Field Takeoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
When to Retract the Landing Gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
1.5 AIRMAN-TRAINING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
BPPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Dual Brakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Dual Brakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Dual Yoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
IFR Flight Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Instrument Training/Flying the Compass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Productive Flight Traning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Stall and Spin Traning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Stall and Spin Traning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Teaching the Radio Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
1.6 AIRMAN-WORKATC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
”Direct” Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
”Direct” Routing and Aircraft Heading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

ix
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Alternate Means of Identifying a Fix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

2 AVIONICS 217
2.1 AVIONICS-ANTENNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
”Blade” Style Antennas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
”Blade” Style Antennas Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
”Blade” Style Antennas Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
”Blade” Style Antennas Verses Flying ”V” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
”Blade” Style Antennas Verses Flying ”V” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Antenna Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
Optimal Antenna Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Optimal Antenna Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Optimal Antenna Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Optimal Antenna Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
2.2 AVIONICS-AP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
3 Axis Autopilots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Autopilot Coupled to GPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Autopilot and GPS Resolver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Backup Wing Leveler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Backup Wing Leveler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Brittain Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Brittain Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Brittain Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Brittain and Tactair Autopilots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
S-Tec and Century IIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
S-Tec and Century IIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
S-Tec and Century IIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Solid State Sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Which Autopilot? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

x
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Yaw Dampener Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

Yaw Dampener Worthwhile? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Yaw Dampeners and Big Iron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
2.3 AVIONICS-APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Marker Beacon Receiver Required? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Sandel and GPS display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
2.4 AVIONICS-ENGINEMONITOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
CHT Probes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
CHT Probes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Insight Verses JPI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
Insight Verses JPI Verses Shadin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
JPI Reset Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
2.5 AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
AN Style DG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
Compass Rose and Swinging a Compass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Desirability of DG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
Digital Tach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
Electronic Tach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
Electronic Tach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
Electronic Tach - Recording Flight Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
Electronic Tach - Recording Flight Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
Electronic Tach/ mechanical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
IFR Flight Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Loss of Control, AP, and Turn Coordinators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
Mechanical Tach Indicator Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
OAT Ram Rise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
OAT Ram Rise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
OAT Ram Rise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
Oil Pressure Gauge Line Restrictor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

xi
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Panel Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

Panel Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Primary Engine Instrument Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
Purchasing a T&B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
Purchasing a T&B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Remote Compass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
T&B Verses Turn Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
T&B Verses Turn Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
T&B vs. Turn Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
T&B vs. Turn Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
T&B vs. Turn Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
T&B vs. Turn Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Tumbling the Gyro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
Used Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
2.6 AVIONICS-MISC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
Avionics Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Avionics Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
Avionics Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
Avionics Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
Avionics Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
Avionics Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Avionics Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
Avionics Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
Avionics Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
Avionics Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
Avionics Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
Avionics Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Avionics Advice - Garmin Verses UPSAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
Avionics Advice - Highly Integrated or Not? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330

xii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Avionics Advice and HSI Desirability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

Bose Headsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
Bose Headsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
CIR-10 ELT Battery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
DG - Degree Hash Marks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
DME Desirability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
DME Desirability/GPS Replacement for DME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
DME Hold Switch/Dual GS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
Fluxgate Valve Mounting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
Ground Station License . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
King KT-76C Transponder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
LORAN as Backup Navigation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
LORAN as Backup Navigation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
Laser Gyros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
Laser Gyros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
Laser Gyros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
Marker Beacon Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
Northstar CT1000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
Panel Configuration and Clock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
Panel Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
Panel Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356
Panel Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
Panel Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
Reliability of Avionic Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
Required Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
Sandel HSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
Sandel HSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
Sandel HSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
Sandel HSI - Bulb Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366

xiii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Static Wicks and Ruddervator Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368

T&B Verses Turn Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
T&B Verses Turn Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
2.7 AVIONICS-STANDBY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
Desirability of Redundant Electric and Air Instrumentation . . . . . . . . 375
Desirability of Redundant Electric and Air Instrumentation . . . . . . . . 377
Desirability of Redundant Electric and Air Instrumentation . . . . . . . . 379
Desirability of Redundant Electric and Air Instrumentation . . . . . . . . 382
Desirability of Warning Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
Rapco Standy Vacuum System Desirability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384
Self Contained, Standby AI or T&B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
Self Contained, Standby AI or T&B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
Self Contained, Standby AI or T&B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
Standby AI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
Standby Alternators - B&C Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
Standby Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
Standby Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392
Standby Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
Standby Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394
Standby Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
Standby Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396
Standby Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
Wind Verses Engine Driven Standby Alternators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
2.8 AVIONICS-WXAVOID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
RADAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
RADAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402
RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . 403
RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . 405
RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . 408

xiv
CONTENTS CONTENTS

RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . 410

RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . 412
Stormscope WX7A Verses Strikefinder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
Strikefinder Display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
Strikefinder and Static Wicks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
WX Avoidance Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
WX Avoidance Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417

3 DESIGN 419
35F vs. 35H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420
5th or 6th Seat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
A36 vs. F33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
A36 vs. V-Tail Bonanza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424
Baron E-55 TE-1152 (oddball serial number) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
Bonanza History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
Bonanza Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428
Bonanza vs. C-210 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
Buying a Classic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
C and D Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433
Cabin Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434
Carpet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435
Control Locks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436
Diesel and Gas Turbine Engines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438
Diesel and Gas Turbine Engines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
Differences Between S35’s and V35’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442
E-Series Engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
Early Bonanza’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
Early Bonanza’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446
Early History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448

xv
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Early Model Wing Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449

Flush Rivets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451
Gear Retraction Switch Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452
Magnesium Ruddervators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454
Models with Canted Engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455
Mooney vs. Bonanza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
Nose Bowl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
O-470/IO-470 Powered Bonanza’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460
Older Bonanza’s and Bendix PS5C Carb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
Primary Instrunction in a Bonanza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462
Questions Regarding M35 to P35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
Rear Seat Structural Member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465
Redesign the Entire Cockpit? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466
Ruddervator Bob Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
Single vs. Twin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468
Single vs. Twin - Cessna Skymaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470
Straight Tail vs. V-Tail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472
Structural Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474
The Floor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476
The Secret - Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477
V-tail AD’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478
V-tail Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
V35A-TC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482
Which Bonanza? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483

4 EQUIP 485
4.1 EQUIP-DEICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485
Prop Deice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486
4.2 EQUIP-ELECTRICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487

xvi
CONTENTS CONTENTS

28 Volt Bonanza’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 488

Alcor/InterAv Alternator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489
Alternator Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490
InterAv Alternator Pully Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492
Interav Alternator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494
Power Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
Standby Alternator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
Standby Alternator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498
Standby Alternator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500
Standby Alternator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501
Standby Alternator and AC Fuel Senders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
Standby Alternators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
Starter Hang Up Warning Light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505
Strobes - Wing Tip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
4.3 EQUIP-ENGINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
Air/Oil Separator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510
Baffling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511
Baffling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512
Baffling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513
Baffling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514
Baffling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515
Baffling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516
Baffling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517
Baffling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520
Baffling - Raytheon Air Scoop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521
Brackett Filter and Alternate Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522
Canted Mount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524
Case Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
Engine Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526

xvii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Engine Upgrade and Gross Weight Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527

GAMI Injectors and Balancing Fuel Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528
GAMI Injectors and Balancing Fuel Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530
IO-470K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO-550 Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532
IO-470K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO-550 Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534
IO-470K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO-550 Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536
IO-470K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO-550 Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537
IO-470 Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538
IO-470 vs. IO-520 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540
IO-470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO-550 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541
IO-470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO-550 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542
IO-470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO-550 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543
IO-470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO-550 vs. Turbo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545
IO-470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO-550 vs. Turbo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547
IO-470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO-550 vs. Turbo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
IO-470 vs. IO-550 - fuel flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
IO-520 vs. IO-550 - Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552
IO-550 - Automatic Mixture Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554
IO-550 - Automatic Mixture Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555
IO-550 Colemill Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556
IO-550 Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558
IO-550 Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560
IO-550 Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561
IO-550 Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562
IO-550 Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564
IO-550 Platinum Engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565
IO-550 or IO-520 for T-34? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566
IO-550 or IO-520 for T-34? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568
Leaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569

xviii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Machen 350 Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571

Manually Adjustable Spark Advance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572
Oil Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573
Ram Air Inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574
Slick vs. Bendix Mags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575
Slick vs. Bendix Mags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576
Slick vs. Bendix Mags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577
Slick vs. Bendix Mags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578
Straight Mount Engine Faster? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579
4.4 EQUIP-ENGINEINSTRUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580
Oil Preassure Gauge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581
4.5 EQUIP-ENGINEMONITOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582
CHT Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583
4.6 EQUIP-ESERIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585
Beech Electric Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586
Engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588
PS5C Pressure Carb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589
PS5C Pressure Carb - Fuel Flow Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591
PS5C Pressure Carb Icing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592
PS5C Pressure Carb - Leaning for Takeoff and Climb . . . . . . . . . . . . 593
Primer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594
Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595
Prop - Which One? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 596
Prop - Which one? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597
Thompson Fuel Pump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598
4.7 EQUIP-FUEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599
Bladders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600
Fuel Bladders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601
Fuel Cell Service Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603

xix
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Fuel Flow Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604

Fuel Injector Nossles - Balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 606
Fuel Tank Baffle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608
Fuel Tank Selector Valve Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610
Fuel cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611
Hand Wobble Pump - Switching Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612
Leaking Quick Drain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613
Locking Fuel Tank Caps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614
Minimum Fuel Requirement AD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615
Tank Baffles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616
Tip Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617
Transfer Pump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619
Two Speed Fuel Pump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620
Usable Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621
4.8 EQUIP-LDGGEAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622
Gear Extension Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623
Gear Position Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624
Gear Position Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625
Gear Position Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626
Gear Position Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627
Gear Position Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628
Gear Position Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 629
Gear Position Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 630
Gear Position Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631
Gear Position Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633
Gear Position Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634
Gear Position Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 636
Gear Switch Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637
Jammed Nose Gear/Bug Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638

xx
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Jammed Nose Gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639

Jammed Nose Gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 640
Jammed Nose Gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642
Jammed Nose Gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643
Manually Retracting Gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 646
Nose Gear Steering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647
Reusing Tire Tubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648
Reusing Tire Tubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649
Tires - Michelin vs. Flight Customs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650
Tires and Wheel Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 651
4.9 EQUIP-MISC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652
5th and 6th Seats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653
Accessories Guru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654
Aileron Trim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655
Air Skeg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656
Air Skegs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657
Alternate Static System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658
Alternator - 50 Amp vs. 100 Amp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659
Alternator - Dynamically Balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 660
Baggage Net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661
Baggage Net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662
Bonanza Seating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663
Bonanza on Floats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664
Chart and Approach Plate Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665
Cold Weather Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 667
Cold Weather Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668
Control Locks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669
Cowl Flaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671
Dual Yoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672

xxi
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Dual Yoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673

Dual Yoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675
Dual Yoke - Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 676
Dual Yoke - Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678
Dual Yokes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 679
Eclipse Personal Jet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681
Eclipse Personal Jet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682
Electric Trim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683
Exhaust Resonators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684
Fixed Step - Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 685
Fixed step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 686
Flap Position Decal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 687
Gap Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 688
Gap Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 689
Gust lock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 690
Gust locks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692
Nose Wheel Tow Pins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 694
Pitot Tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695
Portable O2 System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 696
Pulsing Landing Lights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698
Pulsing Landing Lights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 699
Rear Window - Opening In Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700
Retractable Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702
Retractable Step Speed Penalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 703
Retractable Step Speed Penalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 704
Retractable Step Speed Penalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705
Rigging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706
Rosen Sun Visor’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707
Rosen Sun Visors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 708

xxii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Rotating Beacon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 709

Rotating Beacons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711
Speed Brakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712
Speed Brakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713
Speed Slope Windshield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714
Static Wicks and Flap Position Decals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715
Strobe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717
Strobes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718
V-Tail AD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719
4.10 EQUIP-PROP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 720
Difference Between 406 and 409 Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721
Four Blade Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722
Four Blade Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723
Four Blade Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724
Four Bladed Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726
IO-550 Conversion and 3 Bladed Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727
IO-550 Conversion and Three Bladed Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728
IO-550 Conversion and Three Bladed Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729
IO-550 Conversion and Two Bladed Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 730
IO-550 Conversion and Two Bladed Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 731
IO-550 and Two Bladed Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 732
McCauley 409 and 409 Three Bladed Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733
Prop De-ice/Anti-ice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 734
Prop Deice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736
Three Blade Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737
Three vs. Four Bladed Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738
Three vs. Two Blade Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739
Three vs. Two Blade Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 741
Three vs. Two Blade Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 742

xxiii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Three vs. Two Blade Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743

Which Prop? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 746
Aeromatic Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 748
4.11 EQUIP-REGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 749
Field Approvals - Instructions for Continued Airworthiness . . . . . . . . 750
Unavailable STC’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 751
4.12 EQUIP-TIPTANKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 752
Airspeed Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753
BDS and Delamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 754
BDS and Delamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 755
BDS vs. Brittian (Osborne) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 756
Brittain (Osborne) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758
Fuel Guages and Plumbing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 759
Gross Weight Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760
Gross Weight Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 761
Gross Weight Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762
Gross Weight Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763
Gross Weight Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 764
Gross Weight Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765
Gross Weight Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 766
Gross Weight Increase - Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 767
History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 768
Large Capacity Tip Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770
Large Capacity Tip Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 771
Plumbing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 773
Plumbing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774
Pros and Cons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 776
Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 778
Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 780

xxiv
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Tip Tanks Provide Lift? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 781

Tip Tanks Utility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 782
Tip Tanks Utility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 784
Tip Tanks Utility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 786
Tip Tanks Utility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787
Tip Tanks Utility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 788
Tip Tanks Utility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789
Tip Tanks Utility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791
Tip Tanks Utility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 793
Tip Tanks and Three Bladed Prop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 795
Wing Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 796
4.13 EQUIP-TOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798
Winching the Airplane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799
4.14 EQUIP-TURBO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800
Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801
Turbonormalizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802
Turbonormalizer and IO-470 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803
Usefulness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804
Usefulness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805
Wastegate Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
Weight and CG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809
4.15 EQUIP-VACPUMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810
Air/Oil Separators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811
Cooling Jacket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
No Pneumatic System? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813
No Pneumatic System? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814
Vacuum Pump - Wet vs. Dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816
Wet Vacuum Pumps and Air/Oil Separators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
Wet vs. Dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818

xxv
CONTENTS CONTENTS

4.16 EQUIP-WXAVOID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820

RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . 821

5 GPS 823
5.1 GPS-ANTENNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823
Antenna Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
5.2 GPS-APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
DME Location Fix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826
GPS/NDB Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829
GPS Stuff, RNAV Approach Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
IFR GPS Desirability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
IFR GPS Desirability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
IFR GPS Desirability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
IFR TSO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
New RNAV Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
New RNAV Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
5.3 GPS-HAD-MISC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
Garmin 295 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
5.4 GPS-HANDHELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Garmin 295 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846
Garmin 295 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Yoke Mount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
Yoke Mount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
5.5 GPS-HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852
IFR GPS Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853
5.6 GPS-IFRFLIGHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855
”Direct” with VFR GPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856
”Direct” with VFR GPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857
”Direct” with VFR GPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858

xxvi
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Enroute Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859

Enroute Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
GPS Direst was ADF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
IFR GPS Utility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865
5.7 GPS-MISC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866
Annunciator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867
Barometric Data Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868
Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873
Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874
Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
DGPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880
GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883
GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888
GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
Grey Code Converter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
IFR GPS Desirability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893
IFR GPS Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
IFR GPS Utility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897
IFR Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899
Jamming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Moving Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Nav Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904

xxvii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Nav Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906

Nav Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Nav Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Nav Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Nav Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
Nav Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Nav Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Nav Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Nav Data Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 918
Northstar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 919
Outages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
Panel Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
Panel Mount IFR GPS Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
Panel Mount IFR GPS Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Panel Mount Unit Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927
Panel Mount Unit Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Portable vs. IFR Panel Mount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
RAIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932
Resolver/Serializer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933
Resolver/Serializer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
Resolver/Serializer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
SA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938
SA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Serializer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
Vertical Guidance Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941
Vertical Guidence Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942
WAAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
WAAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
WAAS and Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946

xxviii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

5.8 GPS-REGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 948

Non-Certified Navigation Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 949
5.9 GPS-RULES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951
Nav Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 952
5.10 GPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954
IFR GPS Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955
IFR GPS Utility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957
Mailing List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958
Nav Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959

6 HISTORY 961
Airliner A/P and Loss of Control Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Airliner Engine Operation and CHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
Airliners and Hydraulic Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Aspen Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966
Bonanza Super V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968
CQ From an Airplane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969
Caravelle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 970
Certificate Tests From the Ground? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972
Continental Engine Flight Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 974
Continental History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
DC-3 Two Man Crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
DC-3 Two Man Crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Diesel Engines? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
Diesel Engines? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Diesel Engines? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980
Diesel Engines? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 981
Diesel Engines? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983
First Beech? High Wing Beech? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 984

xxix
CONTENTS CONTENTS

G Model Twin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985

Geraed Lycoming Engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986
Hangar Floor Covering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987
Instrument Panel Color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Last Radio Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
Losing a Blade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991
Meyers 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993
Meyers 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 995
Model 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 996
Model 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 998
Model 36 Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 999
Mooney Mite and Crosley Engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000
Squawk 1400 Above 10,000 feet? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001
Staggerwing Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002
Twin Beech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003
Twin Bonanza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004
Twin Bonanza Stairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005
Twin Engine Beechcraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007
Two Man Crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
Two Man Crew - DC-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009
Two Man Crew - DC-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
WWII pilot’s Total Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Walking on Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Water Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Meyers 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
Wartime Training and Lindbergh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018

7 MAINT 1019
7.1 MAINT-ELECTRICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019

xxx
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Alternator Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020

Alternator Discharging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021
Battery Box Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022
Battery Charging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023
Battery Master - Old Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024
Battery Master - Old Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025
Battery Master - Old Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026
Battery Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027
Chasing Shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028
Chasing Shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
Circuit Breakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Electroluminscent Panel Repair? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
7.2 MAINT-ENGINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Break-in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Case Cracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
Compression Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036
Condensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038
Engine Vibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039
Field Overhaul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040
Fine Wire Plugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041
High CHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042
Idle Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044
Iridium Plugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1045
Oil Leak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1046
Oil Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1047
Oil Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Static RPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Teardown - Prop Strike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054
Turning Prop Backwards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055

xxxi
CONTENTS CONTENTS

7.3 MAINT-ESERIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057

AD 98-13-02 - Slippage Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058
Power Setting/Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Rear Seat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
Wobble Pump Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
Wobble and Electric Boost Pumps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
7.4 MAINT-EXHAUST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Muffler Rebuild . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
7.5 MAINT-FLAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Drooping Flap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Drooping Flap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069
Flap Markings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070
Right Flap needs reskinned? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071
7.6 MAINT-FUEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072
Blue Dye Around Injectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Erratic Insight GEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
Fuel Bladder Installation Tape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Fuel Cap ”O” Rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Fuel Cap O-Rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Fuel Cell Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Fuel Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
IO-470-C Injector Torque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Leaking Quick Drain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
Leaking Sump Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082
Osborne Tank Fuel Cap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083
Quick Drain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084
Quick Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085
Shadin Fuel Flow Indicator Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086
Water In Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087

xxxii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

7.7 MAINT-LDGGEAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088

Actuator Rod End . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089
Gear Box and Motor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090
Gear Case Oil Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091
Gear Extention Handle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092
Gear Up Landing and FAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1093
Gearbox Oil Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1095
Greasing Main Gear Trunnion Bolts and Bushings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
Inner Gear Doors Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098
Loose Cowl Flaps/Nose Gear Doors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Main Landing Gear Strut Removal and Rebuild? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
Main Landing Gear Strut Removal and Rebuild? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103
Nose Gear Door . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104
Nose Gear Doors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Nose Strut Leaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
Three Light Gear Position Indicator System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109
7.8 MAINT-MISC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110
Air Skeg/restoring the S-35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111
Annual Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112
Annual Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113
Annual Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114
Annual Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115
Brackett Air Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116
Carpet Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117
Cowl Flap Rigging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Cowl Flaps Hang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Cowl Flaps Hanging up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120
Drag testing, was Assist step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1122

xxxiii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Dzus Fastener Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123

Elevator Trim Indicator Dial Illumination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1124
Emergency Static Vent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125
Failed Alternators/Generators Away From Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Fixed Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127
Flap Rigging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128
Fuel Sump Winged Fastener . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130
Getting Your A&P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131
Go Fast Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132
Grimes Beacon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1134
Hartzell AD Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1135
Magnesium Ruddervators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1136
Magneto Timing Buzz Box/Down Lock Tension Measuring Device . . . . 1137
Main Gear Strut Rebuilding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1139
Measuring Airspeed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1140
Nose Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1141
Oil Filter Torque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1142
Oil Filter Torque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1143
Overweight Bonanza? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1144
Owner Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1146
Owner Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1147
Painting the Gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1149
Pitot Mast Screws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1150
Pulling up the assist step, was Annual from heaven. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1151
Purchase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1153
Rear Bulkhead Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1154
Rear Seat Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1155
Rear Window Latch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1156
Reccurring Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1157

xxxiv
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Removing the Wings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1158

Replacement Heim Bearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1159
Replacement Zerk Fittings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Replacing The Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Replacing the Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Replacing the Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1164
Replacing the Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1165
Repllacement Heim Bearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1166
Restoration Practicality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1168
Retractable Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1169
Retractable Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1171
Retractable Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
Rigging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1173
Rigging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1174
Rigging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1175
Rigging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1176
Rigging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1177
Rigging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1178
Rigging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1180
Rigging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1182
Saunders Spar Strap’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1184
Sound Dampening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1185
Spar Crack Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1187
Speed Mods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1188
Speed Mods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1189
Speed Mods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1190
Speed Mods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1191
Speed Mods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1193
Speed Mods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1194

xxxv
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Stiff Cowl Flaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196

Strut Inflation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1197
Test Flights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1198
Tires - Balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1199
Torque Wrenches Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1200
Upgrade Practacality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1202
Verneer Control Tension Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1203
Vibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1204
Water in Static System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1205
Weighing Accuracy/Tip Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1206
Wood Flooring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1208
Working with the Shop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1209
Yoke Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1211
Magnesium Ruddervators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1212
Main Gear Strut Rebuilding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1213
weight and balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1214
7.9 MAINT-PARTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1215
Aileron Bearing Rod Ends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1216
Aileron Bearing Rod Ends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1217
Aileron Bearing Rod Ends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1218
Ruddervator Rod Ends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1219
Ruddervator Rod Ends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1220
Ruddervator Rod Ends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1221
Ruddervator Rod Ends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1222
Ruddervator Rod Ends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1223
7.10 MAINT-PROP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1224
Painting Propeller Tips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1225
7.11 MAINT-REGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1226
Adlog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1227

xxxvi
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Adlog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1228
Airworthiness and IA’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1230
CD-ROM Maintenance Documentaion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1232

CD-ROM Maintenance Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1233

Ferry Permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1234
Field Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1235
Field Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1237

Field Approvals and Approved Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1238

Legal Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1239
Owner/Operator Sign Off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1240
Owner Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1241
Owner Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1242
Owner Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1243
Owner Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1244
Placard REquired by AD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1245
Re-Weighing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Re-Weighing and Equipment List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1248
Re-Weighing and Equipment List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1250
Rear Seats - Legal to Remove? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1252
Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1253
STC’s and Field Approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1254
Weight and Balance Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1255
Annual Inspection Discrepancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1256
7.12 MAINT-VACPUMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1257
Intrument Air Induction Hose ”S” Curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1258
Vaccum Pump Installation and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1259
Vacuum Pump Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1260
Wet vs. Dry Vacuum Pump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1261

xxxvii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

8 MISC 1263
Accidents and Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1264
Affording an Airplane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1265
Aileron Roll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1266
Air Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1267
B777 Flight Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1269
Cost of Flying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1270
Eclipse Jet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1271
Eclipse Jet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1272
Flying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1273
Flying Clubs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1274
Flying Films . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1275
Flying Films . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1276
Flying the Airliners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1277
Hauling the Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1278
Jepp Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1280
Life Rafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1282
Life Rafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1284
Logging time - Tach or Hobbs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1285
McCain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1286
Metric Compass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1287
Metric Compass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1288
Misc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1289
Now They Are Shooting At Us! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1290
Portable Oxygen Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1291
Roger vs. Wilco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1292
Single Pilot Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1293
Solo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1296
Twin Beech Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1297

xxxviii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Use of Broker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1298

Use of Broker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1299
Use of Broker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1300
Wisdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1301
Young Pilots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1302
Portable Oxygen Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1304

9 NAV 1305
9.1 NAV-APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1305
Approach Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1306
Approach Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1307
Approach Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1310
Approach Minima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1312
Approach Trivia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1313
Approaches Minima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1315
Approaches under a MOA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1317
DH vs. MDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1318
GPS/ADF Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1320
LNAV Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1321
NDB Approach Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1322
NDB Approach Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1325
NDB Approach Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1326
New Approaches and FAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1327
New Approachs and FAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1329
Non Precision vs. Constant Descent Rate Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . 1331
Non Precision vs. Constant Descent Rate Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . 1334

10 OPERATE 1337
10.1 OPERATE-ELECTRICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1337
Hung Starter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1338

xxxix
CONTENTS CONTENTS

10.2 OPERATE-ENGINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1339

Approach ROM - Prop Speed on Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1340
Approach RPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1342
Best Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1344
Carb Heat/Carb Temp Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1345
Climb Opeartion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1347
Climb Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1348
Criuse Power Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1349
Cruise Power Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1350
Cruise Setting and Ignition Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1351
EGT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1352
EGT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1354
EGT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1356
EGT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1358
Engine Cooling After Shutdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1359
Engine Cooling After Shutdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1360
Engine Cooling After Shutdown (was leaning) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1361
Engine Longevity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1363
Engine Longevity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1365
Fuel Distribution Efficiency and GAMIjectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1366
Fuel Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1367
Fuel Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1368
HP/Speed/Fuel Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1369
Idle Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1371
Lead in Fuel as Lubricant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1372
Lean to Best Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1373
Leaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1374
Leaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1376
Low Static RPM/Poor Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1379

xl
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Maximum MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1381
Mixture Position After Shutdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1383
Mixture and Mountain Flying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1385
Oversquare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1386
Oversquare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1388
Oversquare Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1390
Oversquare Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1391
Oversquare Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1392
Oversquare Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1393
Power Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1395
Power Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1396
Power Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1398
Power Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1400
Power Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1402
RPM During Climb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1404
RPM for Takeoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1406
RPM vs. MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1407
RPM vs. MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1409
Shock Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1411
Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1413
Use of the Engine to Slow Down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1414
Winter baffles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1416
10.3 OPERATE-ESERIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1417
Hot Starts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1418
Improving Fuel Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1420
LOP Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1422
Leaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1423
Leaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1424
Leaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1425

xli
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Leaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1427
Leaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1429
Leaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1430
Leaning/Preheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1431
Max Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1434
Power Off Mixture Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1436
Power Settings/Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1437
Preheat/Primer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1439
Straight 35 Max Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1440
Straight 35 Maximum Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1442
10.4 OPERATE-FUEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1443
Boost Pump Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1444
Desired Fuel Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1445
Fuel Boarding Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1446
Fuel Boarding Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1448
Fuel Boarding Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1449
Fuel Flow with Low power and Full Flaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1450
Fuel Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1451
Fuel Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1453
Fuel Tank Unporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1454
Fuel Unporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1455
Full Boarding Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1458
High Fuel Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1459
Maximizing Range and Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1460
Reserve Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1462
Running Tank Dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1463
Running Tank Dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1465
Running Tank Dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1466
Running Tank Dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1467

xlii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Running Tank Dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1471

Running Tank Dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1472
Running Tank Dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1473
Running Tank Dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1474
Running Tank Dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1475
Running Tank Dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1476
Running Tank Dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1477
Running Tank Dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1479
Running Tank Dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1481
Running Tank Dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1482
Running Tank Dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1484
Running Tank Dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1485
Running Tank Dry/Fuel Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1486
Running Tanks Dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1488
Running Tanks Dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1489
Unusable Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1490
Tank Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1491
10.5 OPERATE-LDGGEAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1493
Gear Extention Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1494
Gear Extention Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1495
Gear Position Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1496
Landing Gear Position Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1497
Manual Gear Extention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1498
Manual Gear Extention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1499
10.6 OPERATE-LOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1500
LOP Opeartion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1501
LOP Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1503
LOP Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1504
LOP Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1506

xliii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

10.7 OPERATE-MISC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1507

Cold Weather Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1508
Cold Weather Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1510
Cool Down After Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1511
Cool Down After Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1512
De-icing Airplanes The Easy Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1513
Hung Starter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1514
Hydraulic Parking Brakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1516
Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1517
OWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1518
Tie Down Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1519
Towing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1520
Towing Backwards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1521
Towing By the Tail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1522
Towing By the Tail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1523
Towing By the Tail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1524
Towing With Gust Lock Installed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1525
Towing backwards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1526
Towing by the Tail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1527
performance Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1528
10.8 OPERATE-PROP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1529
Excessive Prop Cycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1530
Excessive Prop Cycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1531
Stopping the Prop in Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1532
10.9 OPERATE-TIPTANKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1533
Fuel Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1534
Tip Tanks - Effect on Speed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1535

xliv
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Standby Alternator and AC Fuel Senders 502

V-tail AD ’s 478
Minimum Fuel Requirement AD 615
V-Tail AD 719
AD 98-13-02 - Slippage Mark 1058
Hartzell AD Problems 1135
Placard REquired by AD 1245
GPS Direst was ADF 862
GPS In Lieu of ADF /DME 863
GPS In Lieu of ADF /DME 880
GPS In Lieu of ADF /DME 882
GPS In Lieu of ADF /DME 883
GPS In Lieu of ADF /DME 885
GPS In Lieu of ADF /DME 887
GPS In Lieu of ADF /DME 888
GPS In Lieu of ADF /DME 889
GPS/ ADF Approaches 1320
Verses Turn Coordinator Verses AI 171
Self Contained, Standby AI or T&B 385
Self Contained, Standby AI or T&B 387
Self Contained, Standby AI or T&B 388
Standby AI 389
AN Style DG 266
Loss of Control, AP , and Turn Coordinators 278
Squawk 1400 Above 10,000 feet? 1001
Accessories Guru 654
Post Accident Blues 151
Accidents and Risk 1264
WAAS and Accuracy 946
Weighing Accuracy /Tip Tanks 1206
Yaw Induced By the Differential Action of the Aileron 180
Actuator Rod End 1089
Risk and Additional Pilot 160
Manually Adjustable Spark Advance 572
Verneer Control Tension Adjustment 1203
Adlog 1227
Adlog 1228
Manually Adjustable Spark Advance 572
Adverse Yaw Induced By the 180
Aeromatic Prop 748
Affording an Airplane 1265
Aileron Rolls 52
Aileron Rolls 54
the Differential Action of the Aileron 180
Aileron Trim 655
Aileron Bearing Rod Ends 1216

xlv
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Aileron Bearing Rod Ends 1217

Aileron Bearing Rod Ends 1218
Aileron Roll 1266
of Redundant Electric and Air Instrumentation 375
of Redundant Electric and Air Instrumentation 377
of Redundant Electric and Air Instrumentation 379
of Redundant Electric and Air Instrumentation 382
Air /Oil Separator 510
Baffling - Raytheon Air Scoop 521
Brackett Filter and Alternate Air 522
Ram Air Inlet 574
Air Skeg 656
Air Skegs 657
Air /Oil Separators 811
Wet Vacuum Pumps and Air /Oil Separators 817
Air Skeg/restoring the S-35 1111
Brackett Air Filter 1116
Intrument Air Induction Hose ”S” Curve 1258
Air Parks 1267
Determining the Speed of an Aircraft 60
Determining the Speed of an Aircraft 62
Routing/Clearences and Aircraft Heading 76
Routing/Clearences and Aircraft Heading 78
”Direct” Routing and Aircraft Heading 215
Airframe Ice 100
Airframe Ice 102
Airframe Ice and OAT Ram Rise 104
Airliner A/P and Loss of Control 962
Airliner Engine Operation and CHT 963
Airliners and Hydraulic Failure 964
Flying the Airliners 1277
Winching the Airplane 799
CQ From an Airplane 969
Affording an Airplane 1265
De-icing Airplanes The Easy Way 1513
Approach Airspeed - Greater Than Normal 38
Approach Airspeed 40
Loss of Airspeed Indicator/Heated Pitot 140
Airspeed Loss 753
Measuring Airspeed 1140
- Instructions for Continued Airworthiness 750
Airworthiness and IA’s 1230
Alcor /InterAv Alternator 489
InterAv Alternator Pully Alignment 492
Alternate Means of Identifying a 216
Brackett Filter and Alternate Air 522

xlvi
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Alternate Static System 658

Nav Data Alternative 918
Alcor/InterAv Alternator 489
Alternator Failure 490
InterAv Alternator Pully Alignment 492
Interav Alternator 494
Standby Alternator 497
Standby Alternator 498
Standby Alternator 500
Standby Alternator 501
Standby Alternator and AC Fuel Senders 502
Alternator - 50 Amp vs. 100 Amp 659
Alternator - Dynamically Balancing 660
Alternator Discharge 1020
Alternator Discharging 1021
Standby Alternators - B&C Unit 390
Verses Engine Driven Standby Alternators 399
Standby Alternators 503
Failed Alternators /Generators Away From 1126
Alternator - 50 Amp vs. 100 Amp 659
Alternator - 50 Amp vs. 100 Amp 659
Annual Duration 1112
Annual Inspection 1113
Annual Inspections 1114
Annual Inspections 1115
Pulling up the assist step, was Annual from heaven. 1151
Annual Inspection Discrepancy 1256
Annunciator 867
Antenna Installation 224
Optimal Antenna Location 226
Optimal Antenna Location 227
Optimal Antenna Location 228
Optimal Antenna Location 229
Antenna Location 824
”Blade” Style Antennas 218
”Blade” Style Antennas Installation 219
”Blade” Style Antennas Installation 221
”Blade” Style Antennas Verses Flying ”V” 222
”Blade” Style Antennas Verses Flying ”V” 223
Prop De-ice/ Anti -ice 734
Approach Engine RPM 4
Approach Engine RPM 5
Approach Speed and Approach 6
Approach Speed and Approach Category 6
Approach Airspeed - Greater Than 38
Approach Airspeed 40

xlvii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Missed Approach - Nav Failure 47

Chart and Approach Plate Storage 665
GPS Stuff, RNAV Approach Plates 831
Approach Design 1306
Approach Design 1307
Approach Design 1310
Approach Minima 1312
Approach Trivia 1313
LNAV Approach 1321
NDB Approach Design 1322
NDB Approach Design 1325
NDB Approach Design 1326
Approach ROM - Prop Speed on 1340
Approach ROM - Prop Speed on Approach 1340
Approach RPM 1342
High Drag Approaches 10
Circling Approaches 15
Circling Approaches 21
Interesting Approaches 42
GPS/NDB Approaches 829
New RNAV Approaches 839
New RNAV Approaches 841
Approaches Minima 1315
Approaches under a MOA 1317
GPS/ADF Approaches 1320
New Approaches and FAA 1327
vs. Constant Descent Rate Approaches 1331
vs. Constant Descent Rate Approaches 1334
Circling Approachs 19
New Approachs and FAA 1329
Field Approval 1235
Field Approval 1237
Field Approvals - Instructions for 750
Field Approvals and Approved Data 1238
STC’s and Field Approvals 1254
Field Approvals and Approved Data 1238
Now They Are Shooting At Us! 1290
Go Around Configuration 2
Go Around Configuration 13
Go Around Configuration - Baron 35
Go Around Configuration 37
Blue Dye Around Injectors 1073
Go Aroung Configuration 7
Aspen Operation 966
Drag testing, was Assist step 1122
Now They Are Shooting At Us! 1290

xlviii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Failed Attitude Indicator 119

A/P and Loss of Control Authority 962
IO-550 - Automatic Mixture Compensation 554
IO-550 - Automatic Mixture Compensation 555
Autopilot Coupled to GPS 234
Autopilot and GPS Resolver 236
Which Autopilot ? 251
3 Axis Autopilots 232
Brittain and Tactair Autopilots 243
Reliability of Avionic Computers 359
Avionics Advice 313
Avionics Advice 315
Avionics Advice 316
Avionics Advice 317
Avionics Advice 318
Avionics Advice 319
Avionics Advice 321
Avionics Advice 323
Avionics Advice 324
Avionics Advice 325
Avionics Advice 326
Avionics Advice 327
Avionics Advice - Garmin Verses 329
Avionics Advice - Highly 330
Avionics Advice and HSI 331
See and Avoid 165
See and Avoid 166
WX Avoidance Strategies 416
WX Avoidance Strategies 417
Failed Alternators/Generators Away From Home 1126
3 Axis Autopilots 232
BDS and Delamination 754
BDS and Delamination 755
BDS vs. Brittian (Osborne) 756
BPPP 198
Backup GS Desirability 17
Backup T&B 105
Emergencies and Backup Systems 112
Failure Modes and Backup Instruments 122
Use of GPS as Backup Instrumentation 175
Backup Wing Leveler 238
Backup Wing Leveler 239
LORAN as Backup Navigation System 344
LORAN as Backup Navigation System 345
Turning Prop Backwards 1055
Towing Backwards 1521

xlix
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Fuel Tank Baffle 608

Tank Baffles 616
Baffling 511
Baffling 512
Baffling 513
Baffling 514
Baffling 515
Baffling 516
Baffling 517
Baffling 520
Baffling - Raytheon Air Scoop 521
Baggage Net 661
Baggage Net 662
Static Wicks and Ruddervator Balance 368
Weight and Balance Update 1255
GAMI Injectors and Balancing Fuel Flows 528
GAMI Injectors and Balancing Fuel Flows 530
Fuel Injector Nossles - Balancing 606
Alternator - Dynamically Balancing 660
Tires - Balancing 1199
Barometric Data Input 868
Go Around Configuration - Baron 35
Baron E-55 TE-1152 (oddball serial 425
CIR-10 ELT Battery 334
Battery Box Removal 1022
Battery Charging 1023
Battery Master - Old Style 1024
Battery Master - Old Style 1025
Battery Master - Old Style 1026
Battery Selection 1027
Marker Beacon Receiver Required? 257
Marker Beacon Operation 351
Rotating Beacon 709
Grimes Beacon 1134
Rotating Beacons 711
Aileron Bearing Rod Ends 1216
Aileron Bearing Rod Ends 1217
Aileron Bearing Rod Ends 1218
Replacement Heim Bearings 1159
Repllacement Heim Bearings 1166
Beech Electric Prop 586
First Beech ? High Wing Beech? 984
First Beech? High Wing Beech ? 984
Twin Beech 1003
Twin Beech Society 1297
Twin Engine Beechcraft 1007

l
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Older Bonanza’s and Bendix PS5C Carb 461

Slick vs. Bendix Mags 575
Slick vs. Bendix Mags 576
Slick vs. Bendix Mags 577
Slick vs. Bendix Mags 578
Best Power 1344
Lean to Best Power 1373
Bird Strike 106
Fuel Bladder Installation Tape 1075
Bladders 600
Fuel Bladders 601
” Blade ” Style Antennas 218
” Blade ” Style Antennas Installation 219
” Blade ” Style Antennas Installation 221
” Blade ” Style Antennas Verses 222
” Blade ” Style Antennas Verses 223
Four Blade Prop 722
Four Blade Prop 723
Four Blade Prop 724
Three Blade Prop 737
Three vs. Two Blade Prop 739
Three vs. Two Blade Prop 741
Three vs. Two Blade Prop 742
Three vs. Two Blade Prop 743
Losing a Blade 991
Four Bladed Prop 726
IO-550 Conversion and 3 Bladed Prop 727
IO-550 Conversion and Three Bladed Prop 728
IO-550 Conversion and Three Bladed Prop 729
IO-550 Conversion and Two Bladed Prop 730
IO-550 Conversion and Two Bladed Prop 731
IO-550 and Two Bladed Prop 732
McCauley 409 and 409 Three Bladed Prop 733
Three vs. Four Bladed Prop 738
Tip Tanks and Three Bladed Prop 795
Blue Dye Around Injectors 1073
Post Accident Blues 151
Fuel Boarding Requirement 1446
Fuel Boarding Requirements 1448
Fuel Boarding Requirements 1449
Full Boarding Requirement 1458
Ruddervator Bob Weights 467
Greasing Main Gear Trunnion Bolts and Bushings 1096
Is a VFR Bonanza Pilot Safe? 132
A36 vs. V-Tail Bonanza 424
Bonanza History 426

li
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Bonanza Weight 428

Bonanza vs. C-210 429
Early Bonanza ’s 444
Early Bonanza ’s 446
Mooney vs. Bonanza 457
O-470/IO-470 Powered Bonanza ’s 460
Older Bonanza ’s and Bendix PS5C Carb 461
Primary Instrunction in a Bonanza 462
Which Bonanza ? 483
28 Volt Bonanza ’s 488
Bonanza Seating 663
Bonanza on Floats 664
Bonanza Super V 968
Twin Bonanza 1004
Twin Bonanza Stairs 1005
Overweight Bonanza ? 1144
Wobble and Electric Boost Pumps 1064
Boost Pump Use 1444
Bose Headsets 332
Bose Headsets 333
Nose Bowl 459
Brackett Filter and Alternate Air 522
Brackett Air Filter 1116
Dual Brakes 199
Dual Brakes 201
Speed Brakes 712
Speed Brakes 713
Hydraulic Parking Brakes 1516
Break -in 1033
Circuit Breakers 1030
Brittain Industries 240
Brittain Maintenance 241
Brittain Maintenance 242
Brittain and Tactair Autopilots 243
Brittain (Osborne) 758
BDS vs. Brittian (Osborne) 756
Use of Broker 1298
Use of Broker 1299
Use of Broker 1300
Jammed Nose Gear/ Bug Replacement 638
Sandel HSI - Bulb Failure 366
Rear Bulkhead Inspection 1154
Main Gear Trunnion Bolts and Bushings 1096
Buying a Classic 431
Magneto Timing Buzz Box/Down Lock Tension 1137
CD -ROM Maintenance Documentaion 1232

lii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

CD -ROM Maintenance Documentation 1233

Weight and CG 809
CHT Probes 260
CHT Probes 261
CHT Replacement 583
Airliner Engine Operation and CHT 963
High CHT 1042
CIR -10 ELT Battery 334
CQ From an Airplane 969
Northstar CT 1000 353
Closing Cabin Door In Flight 56
Cabin Size 434
Fuel Flow Calibration 604
Models with Canted Engine 455
Canted Mount 524
Fuel Cap ”O” Rings 1076
Fuel Cap O-Rings 1077
Osborne Tank Fuel Cap 1083
Large Capacity Tip Tanks 770
Large Capacity Tip Tanks 771
Running Tank Dry/Fuel Capacity 1486
Tank Capacity 1491
Locking Fuel Tank Caps 614
Caravelle 970
Older Bonanza’s and Bendix PS5C Carb 461
PS5C Pressure Carb 589
PS5C Pressure Carb - Fuel Flow Measurements 591
PS5C Pressure Carb Icing 592
PS5C Pressure Carb - Leaning for Takeoff and 593
Carb Heat/Carb Temp Indicator 1345
Carb Heat/ Carb Temp Indicator 1345
Carpet 435
Carpet Installation 1117
Case Cracking 525
Case Cracks 1035
Gear Case Oil Level 1091
Approach Speed and Approach Category 6
Gross Weight Increase - Category 767
Fuel Cell Service Advice 603
Fuel Cell Repair 1078
S-Tec and Century IIB 245
S-Tec and Century IIB 246
S-Tec and Century IIB 247
Certificate Tests From the Ground? 972
Certification 869
Certification 871

liii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Non- Certified Navigation Equipment 949

Single vs. Twin - Cessna Skymaster 470
Changing Tanks and Pre Landing 18
Battery Charging 1023
Chart and Approach Plate Storage 665
Jepp Charts 1280
Chasing Shorts 1028
Chasing Shorts 1029
GUMP Check 34
Changing Tanks and Pre Landing Checklist 18
Circling Approaches 15
Circling Approachs 19
Circling Approaches 21
Circuit Breakers 1030
Buying a Classic 431
Routing/ Clearences and Aircraft Heading 76
Routing/ Clearences and Aircraft Heading 78
Carb - Leaning for Takeoff and Climb 593
Climb Opeartion 1347
Climb Power 1348
RPM During Climb 1404
Panel Configuration and Clock 354
Closing Cabin Door In Flight 56
Closing Door In Flight 58
Closing Door In Flight 107
Flying Clubs 1274
Redesign the Entire Cockpit ? 466
Grey Code Converter 891
Cold Weather Operation 667
Cold Weather Operation 668
Cold Weather Operation 1508
Cold Weather Operation 1510
IO-550 Colemill Conversion 556
Instrument Panel Color 988
Risk and Comfort Level 162
Panel Mount Unit Comparison 927
Instrument Training/Flying the Compass 204
Compass Rose and Swinging a 267
Compass Rose and Swinging a Compass 267
Remote Compass 292
Metric Compass 1287
Metric Compass 1288
IO-550 - Automatic Mixture Compensation 554
IO-550 - Automatic Mixture Compensation 555
Demonstrated Crosswind Component 28
Compression Test 1036

liv
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Reliability of Avionic Computers 359

Condensation 1038
Go Around Configuration 2
Go Aroung Configuration 7
Go Around Configuration 13
Go Around Configuration - Baron 35
Go Around Configuration 37
Panel Configuration 285
Panel Configuration 287
Panel Configuration and Clock 354
Configuration 801
Pros and Cons 776
Non Precision vs. Constant Descent Rate Approaches 1331
Non Precision vs. Constant Descent Rate Approaches 1334
Panel Construction 355
Panel Construction 356
Panel Construction 357
Panel Construction 358
Oil Consumption 573
Continental Engine Flight Test 974
Continental History 975
Approvals - Instructions for Continued Airworthiness 750
Loss of Control - Stop the Turn! 142
Loss of Control - Stop the Turn! 143
Loss of Control - Stop the Turn! 144
Loss of Control - Stop the Turn! ( 146
Loss of Control , AP, and Turn Coordinators 278
Control Locks 436
Control Locks 669
Airliner A/P and Loss of Control Authority 962
Verneer Control Tension Adjustment 1203
0K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO-550 Conversion 532
0K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO-550 Conversion 534
0K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO-550 Conversion 536
0K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO-550 Conversion 537
IO-470 Conversion 538
IO-550 Colemill Conversion 556
IO-550 Conversion 558
IO-550 Conversion 560
IO-550 Conversion 561
IO-550 Conversion 562
IO-550 Conversion 564
Machen 350 Conversion 571
IO-550 Conversion and 3 Bladed Prop 727
IO-550 Conversion and Three Bladed Prop 728
IO-550 Conversion and Three Bladed Prop 729

lv
CONTENTS CONTENTS

IO-550 Conversion and Two Bladed Prop 730

IO-550 Conversion and Two Bladed Prop 731
Grey Code Converter 891
Cool Down After Parking 1511
Cool Down After Parking 1512
Engine Cooling 526
Cooling Jacket 812
Engine Cooling After Shutdown 1359
Engine Cooling After Shutdown 1360
Engine Cooling After Shutdown (was 1361
Shock Cooling 1411
T&B vs. Turn Coordinator 80
Failed Turn Coordinator and T&B’s 120
T&B Verses Turn Coordinator Verses AI 171
T&B Verses Turn Coordinator 293
T&B Verses Turn Coordinator 296
T&B vs. Turn Coordinator 298
T&B vs. Turn Coordinator 303
T&B vs. Turn Coordinator 305
T&B vs. Turn Coordinator 309
T&B Verses Turn Coordinator 370
T&B Verses Turn Coordinator 372
Loss of Control, AP, and Turn Coordinators 278
Cost 873
Cost 874
Cost 876
Cost of Flying 1270
Autopilot Coupled to GPS 234
Hangar Floor Covering 987
Cowl Flaps 671
Loose Cowl Flaps/Nose Gear Doors 1100
Cowl Flap Rigging 1118
Cowl Flaps Hang 1119
Cowl Flaps Hanging up 1120
Stiff Cowl Flaps 1196
Spar Crack Inspection 1187
Case Cracking 525
Case Cracks 1035
Cranking Down the Gear 108
DC-3 Two Man Crew 976
DC-3 Two Man Crew 977
Two Man Crew 1008
Two Man Crew - DC-3 1009
Two Man Crew - DC-3 1010
Criuse Power Setting 1349
Mooney Mite and Crosley Engine 1000

lvi
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Crosswind Landings 23
Crosswind Landings 24
Demonstrated Crosswind Component 28
Crosswing Landing - Fuel Unporting 31
Cruise Power Setting 1350
Cruise Setting and Ignition Timing 1351
Air Induction Hose ”S” Curve 1258
Excessive Prop Cycling 1530
Excessive Prop Cycling 1531
C and D Models 433
DC -3 Two Man Crew 976
DC -3 Two Man Crew 977
Two Man Crew - DC -3 1009
Two Man Crew - DC -3 1010
AN Style DG 266
Desirability of DG 268
DG - Degree Hash Marks 335
DGPS 878
DH vs. MDA 1318
DME Desirability 337
DME Desirability/GPS Replacement 338
/GPS Replacement for DME 338
DME Hold Switch/Dual GS 340
DME Location Fix 826
GPS In Lieu of ADF/ DME 863
GPS In Lieu of ADF/ DME 880
GPS In Lieu of ADF/ DME 882
GPS In Lieu of ADF/ DME 883
GPS In Lieu of ADF/ DME 885
GPS In Lieu of ADF/ DME 887
GPS In Lieu of ADF/ DME 888
GPS In Lieu of ADF/ DME 889
Yaw Dampener Operation 252
Yaw Dampener Worthwhile? 254
Yaw Dampeners and Big Iron 255
Sound Dampening 1185
Barometric Data Input 868
Nav Data 904
Nav Data 906
Nav Data 907
Nav Data 908
Nav Data 910
Nav Data 912
Nav Data 914
Nav Data 915
Nav Data 917

lvii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Nav Data Alternative 918

Vertical Guidance Data 941
Vertical Guidence Data 942
Nav Data 952
Nav Data 959
Field Approvals and Approved Data 1238
Flap Position Decal 687
Static Wicks and Flap Position Decals 715
Visual Decent Point (VDP) Usefulness 49
DG - Degree Hash Marks 335
Prop Deice 486
Prop Deice 736
BDS and Delamination 754
BDS and Delamination 755
Demonstrated Crosswind Component 28
of Control - Stop the Turn! ( Demonstrating) 146
Descent Below MDA 29
Descent Below MDA 30
Emergency IMC Descent 113
Non Precision vs. Constant Descent Rate Approaches 1331
Non Precision vs. Constant Descent Rate Approaches 1334
Safety and Design Philosophy 163
Early Model Wing Design 449
Approach Design 1306
Approach Design 1307
Approach Design 1310
NDB Approach Design 1322
NDB Approach Design 1325
NDB Approach Design 1326
Backup GS Desirability 17
Desirability of DG 268
Avionics Advice and HSI Desirability 331
DME Desirability 337
DME Desirability /GPS Replacement for 338
Desirability of Redundant Electric 375
Desirability of Redundant Electric 377
Desirability of Redundant Electric 379
Desirability of Redundant Electric 382
Desirability of Warning Flags 383
Rapco Standy Vacuum System Desirability 384
IFR GPS Desirability 833
IFR GPS Desirability 834
IFR GPS Desirability 836
IFR GPS Desirability 893
Desired Fuel Level 1445
Determining the Speed of an 60

lviii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Determining the Speed of an 62

Box/Down Lock Tension Measuring Device 1137
Elevator Trim Indicator Dial Illumination 1124
Diesel and Gas Turbine Engines 438
Diesel and Gas Turbine Engines 440
Diesel Engines? 978
Diesel Engines? 979
Diesel Engines? 980
Diesel Engines? 981
Diesel Engines? 983
Differences Between S35’s and V35’ 442
Adverse Yaw Induced By the Differential Action of the Aileron 180
Digital Tach 269
” Direct ” Routing 213
” Direct ” Routing and Aircraft 215
” Direct ” with VFR GPS 856
” Direct ” with VFR GPS 857
” Direct ” with VFR GPS 858
GPS Direst was ADF 862
Alternator Discharge 1020
Alternator Discharging 1021
Annual Inspection Discrepancy 1256
Strikefinder Display 414
Fuel Distribution Efficiency and 1366
Improving Fuel Distribution 1420
CD-ROM Maintenance Documentaion 1232
CD-ROM Maintenance Documentation 1233
Closing Cabin Door In Flight 56
Closing Door In Flight 58
Closing Door In Flight 107
Nose Gear Door 1104
Inner Gear Doors Holes 1097
Loose Cowl Flaps/Nose Gear Doors 1100
Nose Gear Doors 1106
High Drag Approaches 10
Drag testing, was Assist step 1122
Leaking Quick Drain 613
Leaking Quick Drain 1081
Quick Drain 1084
Fuel Drains 1079
Leaking Sump Drains 1082
Quick Drains 1085
Wind Verses Engine Driven Standby Alternators 399
Drooping Flap 1068
Drooping Flap 1069
Vacuum Pump - Wet vs. Dry 816

lix
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Wet vs. Dry 818

Wet vs. Dry Vacuum Pump 1261
Running Tank Dry 1463
Running Tank Dry 1465
Running Tank Dry 1466
Running Tank Dry 1467
Running Tank Dry 1471
Running Tank Dry 1472
Running Tank Dry 1473
Running Tank Dry 1474
Running Tank Dry 1475
Running Tank Dry 1476
Running Tank Dry 1477
Running Tank Dry 1479
Running Tank Dry 1481
Running Tank Dry 1482
Running Tank Dry 1484
Running Tank Dry 1485
Running Tank Dry /Fuel Capacity 1486
Running Tanks Dry 1488
Running Tanks Dry 1489
Dual Brakes 199
Dual Brakes 201
Dual Yoke 202
DME Hold Switch/ Dual GS 340
Dual Yoke 672
Dual Yoke 673
Dual Yoke 675
Dual Yoke - Instruction 676
Dual Yoke - Instruction 678
Dual Yokes 679
Annual Duration 1112
Blue Dye Around Injectors 1073
Alternator - Dynamically Balancing 660
Dzus Fastener Tool 1123
EGT 1352
EGT 1354
EGT 1356
EGT 1358
CIR-10 ELT Battery 334
Early Bonanza’s 444
Early Bonanza’s 446
Early History 448
Early Model Wing Design 449
De-icing Airplanes The Easy Way 1513
Eclipse Personal Jet 681

lx
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Eclipse Personal Jet 682

Eclipse Jet 1271
Eclipse Jet 1272
Tip Tanks - Effect on Speed? 1535
Fuel Distribution Efficiency and GAMIjectors 1366
Desirability of Redundant Electric and Air Instrumentation 375
Desirability of Redundant Electric and Air Instrumentation 377
Desirability of Redundant Electric and Air Instrumentation 379
Desirability of Redundant Electric and Air Instrumentation 382
Beech Electric Prop 586
Electric Trim 683
Wobble and Electric Boost Pumps 1064
Electrical System Failure 109
Electrical System Failure 110
Electroluminscent
Panel Repair? 1031
Electronic Tach 270
Electronic Tach 272
Electronic Tach - Recording Flight 273
Electronic Tach - Recording Flight 274
Electronic Tach/ mechanical 276
Elevator Trim Indicator Dial 1124
Emergencies and Backup Systems 112
Emergency IMC Descent 113
Emergency Landing: Gear Up or Down 114
Emergency Static Vent 1125
Actuator Rod End 1089
Aileron Bearing Rod Ends 1216
Aileron Bearing Rod Ends 1217
Aileron Bearing Rod Ends 1218
Ruddervator Rod Ends 1219
Ruddervator Rod Ends 1220
Ruddervator Rod Ends 1221
Ruddervator Rod Ends 1222
Ruddervator Rod Ends 1223
Endurance and Evaluating One’s 116
Approach Engine RPM 4
Approach Engine RPM 5
Engine Failure and Risk 118
Primary Engine Instrument Replacement 288
Wind Verses Engine Driven Standby Alternators 399
E-Series Engine 443
Models with Canted Engine 455
Engine Cooling 526
Engine Upgrade and Gross Weight 527
IO-550 Platinum Engine 565
Straight Mount Engine Faster? 579

lxi
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Engine 588
Airliner Engine Operation and CHT 963
Continental Engine Flight Test 974
Geraed Lycoming Engine 986
Mooney Mite and Crosley Engine 1000
Twin Engine Beechcraft 1007
Engine Vibration 1039
Engine Cooling After Shutdown 1359
Engine Cooling After Shutdown 1360
Engine Cooling After Shutdown (was 1361
Engine Longevity 1363
Engine Longevity 1365
Use of the Engine to Slow Down 1414
Diesel and Gas Turbine Engines 438
Diesel and Gas Turbine Engines 440
Diesel Engines ? 978
Diesel Engines ? 979
Diesel Engines ? 980
Diesel Engines ? 981
Diesel Engines ? 983
Enroute Navigation 859
Enroute Navigation 861
Required Equipment for IFR Flight 73
Standby Equipment 168
Required Equipment 361
Non-Certified Navigation Equipment 949
Re-Weighing and Equipment List 1248
Re-Weighing and Equipment List 1250
Mechanical Tach Indicator Error 280
Endurance and Evaluating One’s Limits 116
Exhaust Resonators 684
One Main Landing Gear Won’t Extend 148
Gear Extension Speed 623
Gear Extention Handle 1092
Gear Extention Speed 1494
Gear Extention Speed 1495
Manual Gear Extention 1498
Manual Gear Extention 1499
Gear Up Landing and FAA 1093
New Approaches and FAA 1327
New Approachs and FAA 1329
Failed Attitude Indicator 119
Failed Turn Coordinator and T&B’s 120
Recognizing Failed Instruments 153
Recognizing Failed Instruments 154
Recognizing Failed Instruments 157

lxii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Failed Alternators/Generators Away 1126

GS Failure 32
Missed Approach - Nav Failure 47
Electrical System Failure 109
Electrical System Failure 110
Engine Failure and Risk 118
Failure Modes and Backup 122
in Static System and Instrument Failure 178
Sandel HSI - Bulb Failure 366
Alternator Failure 490
Airliners and Hydraulic Failure 964
Hauling the Family 1278
Go Fast Stuff 1132
Dzus Fastener Tool 1123
Fuel Sump Winged Fastener 1130
Straight Mount Engine Faster ? 579
Panel Mount Unit Features 929
Ferry Permit 1234
Use of Flaps/Short Field Takeoff 193
Field Approvals - Instructions for 750
Field Overhaul 1040
Field Approval 1235
Field Approval 1237
Field Approvals and Approved Data 1238
STC’s and Field Approvals 1254
Flying Films 1275
Flying Films 1276
Brackett Filter and Alternate Air 522
Brackett Air Filter 1116
Oil Filter Torque 1142
Oil Filter Torque 1143
Fine Wire Plugs 1041
First Beech? High Wing Beech? 984
Replacement Zerk Fittings 1161
Means of Identifying a Fix 216
DME Location Fix 826
Fixed Step - Removal 685
Fixed step 686
Fixed Step 1127
Desirability of Warning Flags 383
Flap Setting 64
Flap Setting 65
Flap Position Decal 687
Static Wicks and Flap Position Decals 715
Drooping Flap 1068
Drooping Flap 1069

lxiii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Flap Markings 1070

Right Flap needs reskinned? 1071
Cowl Flap Rigging 1118
Flap Rigging 1128
Selection Partial Flaps 9
Use of Flaps 97
Use of Flaps 98
Gear Up landing: Flaps Up or Down? 129
Use of Flaps 188
Use of Flaps 190
Use of Flaps 191
Use of Flaps 192
Use of Flaps /Short Field Takeoff 193
Cowl Flaps 671
Loose Cowl Flaps /Nose Gear Doors 1100
Cowl Flaps Hang 1119
Cowl Flaps Hanging up 1120
Stiff Cowl Flaps 1196
Flow with Low power and Full Flaps 1450
Closing Cabin Door In Flight 56
Closing Door In Flight 58
Required Equipment for IFR Flight 73
Closing Door In Flight 107
IFR Flight Risk 130
IFR Flight Instruction 203
Productive Flight Traning 205
Electronic Tach - Recording Flight Time 273
Electronic Tach - Recording Flight Time 274
IFR Flight Instruments 277
Tires - Michelin vs. Flight Customs 650
Rear Window - Opening In Flight 700
Continental Engine Flight Test 974
B777 Flight Time 1269
Stopping the Prop in Flight 1532
Test Flights 1198
Bonanza on Floats 664
The Floor 476
Hangar Floor Covering 987
Wood Flooring 1208
PS5C Pressure Carb - Fuel Flow Measurements 591
Fuel Flow Calibration 604
Shadin Fuel Flow Indicator Problem 1086
Fuel Flow 1367
Fuel Flow 1368
HP/Speed/Fuel Flow 1369
Fuel Flow with Low power and Full Flaps 1450

lxiv
CONTENTS CONTENTS

High Fuel Flow 1459

Injectors and Balancing Fuel Flows 528
Injectors and Balancing Fuel Flows 530
Flush Rivets 451
Fluxgate Valve Mounting 341
Flying ”Agressively” 66
Flying a Proper Pattern 67
Flying a Proper Pattern 69
Instrument Training/ Flying the Compass 204
”Blade” Style Antennas Verses Flying ”V” 222
”Blade” Style Antennas Verses Flying ”V” 223
Cost of Flying 1270
Flying 1273
Flying Clubs 1274
Flying Films 1275
Flying Films 1276
Flying the Airliners 1277
Mixture and Mountain Flying 1385
Four Blade Prop 722
Four Blade Prop 723
Four Blade Prop 724
Four Bladed Prop 726
Three vs. Four Bladed Prop 738
CQ From an Airplane 969
Certificate Tests From the Ground? 972
Alternators/Generators Away From Home 1126
Frozen Pitot Tube 124
Crosswing Landing - Fuel Unporting 31
Standby Alternator and AC Fuel Senders 502
GAMI Injectors and Balancing Fuel Flows 528
GAMI Injectors and Balancing Fuel Flows 530
PS5C Pressure Carb - Fuel Flow Measurements 591
Thompson Fuel Pump 598
Fuel Bladders 601
Fuel Cell Service Advice 603
Fuel Flow Calibration 604
Fuel Injector Nossles - Balancing 606
Fuel Tank Baffle 608
Fuel Tank Selector Valve Location 610
Fuel cells 611
Locking Fuel Tank Caps 614
Minimum Fuel Requirement AD 615
Two Speed Fuel Pump 620
Usable Fuel 621
Fuel Guages and Plumbing 759
Fuel Bladder Installation Tape 1075

lxv
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Fuel Cap ”O” Rings 1076

Fuel Cap O-Rings 1077
Fuel Cell Repair 1078
Fuel Drains 1079
Osborne Tank Fuel Cap 1083
Shadin Fuel Flow Indicator Problem 1086
Fuel Sump Winged Fastener 1130
Fuel Distribution Efficiency and 1366
Fuel Flow 1367
Fuel Flow 1368
HP/Speed/ Fuel Flow 1369
Lead in Fuel as Lubricant 1372
Improving Fuel Distribution 1420
Desired Fuel Level 1445
Fuel Boarding Requirement 1446
Fuel Boarding Requirements 1448
Fuel Boarding Requirements 1449
Fuel Flow with Low power and Full 1450
Fuel Management 1451
Fuel Reserve 1453
Fuel Tank Unporting 1454
Fuel Unporting 1455
High Fuel Flow 1459
Reserve Fuel 1462
Running Tank Dry/ Fuel Capacity 1486
Unusable Fuel 1490
Fuel Management 1534
Fuel Flow with Low power and Full Flaps 1450
Full Boarding Requirement 1458
GAMI Injectors and Balancing Fuel 528
GAMI Injectors and Balancing Fuel 530
Distribution Efficiency and GAMIjectors 1366
Erratic Insight GEM 1074
Use of GPS as Backup Instrumentation 175
Autopilot Coupled to GPS 234
Autopilot and GPS Resolver 236
Sandel and GPS display 258
DME Desirability/ GPS Replacement for DME 338
GPS /NDB Approaches 829
GPS Stuff, RNAV Approach Plates 831
IFR GPS Desirability 833
IFR GPS Desirability 834
IFR GPS Desirability 836
IFR GPS Navigation 853
”Direct” with VFR GPS 856
”Direct” with VFR GPS 857

lxvi
CONTENTS CONTENTS

”Direct” with VFR GPS 858

GPS Direst was ADF 862
GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME 863
IFR GPS Utility 865
GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME 880
GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME 882
GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME 883
GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME 885
GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME 887
GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME 888
GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME 889
IFR GPS Desirability 893
IFR GPS Navigation 895
IFR GPS Utility 897
Panel Mount IFR GPS Advice 924
Panel Mount IFR GPS Advice 926
IFR GPS Navigation 955
IFR GPS Utility 957
GPS /ADF Approaches 1320
Backup GS Desirability 17
GS Failure 32
DME Hold Switch/Dual GS 340
GUMP Check 34
Gap Seals 688
Gap Seals 689
Avionics Advice - Garmin Verses UPSAT 329
Garmin 295 844
Garmin 295 846
Garmin 295 848
Diesel and Gas Turbine Engines 438
Diesel and Gas Turbine Engines 440
Oil Pressure Gauge Line Restrictor 284
Oil Preassure Gauge 581
Cranking Down the Gear 108
Emergency Landing: Gear Up or Down? 114
Gear Up Landing: Paved or Turf 125
Gear Up Landing: Paved or Turf 127
Gear Up Landing: Paved or Turf 128
Gear Up landing: Flaps Up or Down? 129
One Main Landing Gear Won’t Extend 148
When to Retract the Landing Gear 195
Gear Retraction Switch Location 452
Gear Extension Speed 623
Gear Position Indicator 624
Gear Position Indicator 625
Gear Position Indicator 626

lxvii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Gear Position Indicator 627

Gear Position Indicator 628
Gear Position Indicator 629
Gear Position Indicator 630
Gear Position Indicator 631
Gear Position Indicator 633
Gear Position Indicator 634
Gear Position Indicator 636
Gear Switch Location 637
Jammed Nose Gear /Bug Replacement 638
Jammed Nose Gear 639
Jammed Nose Gear 640
Jammed Nose Gear 642
Jammed Nose Gear 643
Manually Retracting Gear 646
Nose Gear Steering 647
Gear Box and Motor 1090
Gear Case Oil Level 1091
Gear Extention Handle 1092
Gear Up Landing and FAA 1093
Greasing Main Gear Trunnion Bolts and Bushings 1096
Inner Gear Doors Holes 1097
Loose Cowl Flaps/Nose Gear Doors 1100
Main Landing Gear Strut Removal and Rebuild? 1102
Main Landing Gear Strut Removal and Rebuild? 1103
Nose Gear Door 1104
Nose Gear Doors 1106
Three Light Gear Position Indicator System 1109
Main Gear Strut Rebuilding 1139
Painting the Gear 1149
Main Gear Strut Rebuilding 1213
Gear Extention Speed 1494
Gear Extention Speed 1495
Gear Position Indicator 1496
Landing Gear Position Indicator 1497
Manual Gear Extention 1498
Manual Gear Extention 1499
Gearbox Oil Level 1095
Failed Alternators/ Generators Away From Home 1126
Geraed Lycoming Engine 986
Getting Your A&P 1131
Go Around Configuration 2
Go Aroung Configuration 7
Go Around Configuration 13
Go Around Configuration - Baron 35
Go Around Configuration 37

lxviii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Touch & Go ’s 93
Touch and Go ’s 95
Touch and Go ’s 96
Go Fast Stuff 1132
Greasing Main Gear Trunnion Bolts 1096
Approach Airspeed - Greater Than Normal 38
Grey Code Converter 891
Grimes Beacon 1134
Engine Upgrade and Gross Weight Increase 527
Gross Weight Increase 760
Gross Weight Increase 761
Gross Weight Increase 762
Gross Weight Increase 763
Gross Weight Increase 764
Gross Weight Increase 765
Gross Weight Increase 766
Gross Weight Increase - Category 767
Ground Station License 342
Certificate Tests From the Ground ? 972
Fuel Guages and Plumbing 759
Vertical Guidance Data 941
Vertical Guidence Data 942
Accessories Guru 654
Gust lock 690
Gust locks 692
Towing With Gust Lock Installed 1525
Tumbling the Gyro 310
Laser Gyros 347
Laser Gyros 348
Laser Gyros 350
35F vs. 35 H 420
HP /Speed/Fuel Flow 1369
Avionics Advice and HSI Desirability 331
Sandel HSI 363
Sandel HSI 364
Sandel HSI 365
Sandel HSI - Bulb Failure 366
Hand Wobble Pump - Switching Tanks 612
Gear Extention Handle 1092
Starter Hang Up Warning Light 505
Cowl Flaps Hang 1119
Hangar Floor Covering 987
Cowl Flaps Hanging up 1120
Hartzell AD Problems 1135
DG - Degree Hash Marks 335
Hauling the Family 1278

lxix
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Routing/Clearences and Aircraft Heading 76

Routing/Clearences and Aircraft Heading 78
”Direct” Routing and Aircraft Heading 215
Bose Headsets 332
Bose Headsets 333
Carb Heat /Carb Temp Indicator 1345
Loss of Airspeed Indicator/ Heated Pitot Tube 140
Replacement Heim Bearings 1159
Repllacement Heim Bearings 1166
Finding Traffic Hidden by the Sun 63
High Drag Approaches 10
First Beech? High Wing Beech? 984
High CHT 1042
High Fuel Flow 1459
Avionics Advice - Highly Integrated or Not? 330
Bonanza History 426
Early History 448
History 768
Continental History 975
Logging time - Tach or Hobbs ? 1285
DME Hold Switch/Dual GS 340
Inner Gear Doors Holes 1097
/Generators Away From Home 1126
Intrument Air Induction Hose ”S” Curve 1258
Hot Starts 1418
Hung Starter 1338
Hung Starter 1514
Airliners and Hydraulic Failure 964
Hydraulic Parking Brakes 1516
Airworthiness and IA ’s 1230
Required Equipment for IFR Flight 73
IFR Flight Risk 130
IFR Flight Instruction 203
IFR Flight Instruments 277
IFR GPS Desirability 833
IFR GPS Desirability 834
IFR GPS Desirability 836
IFR TSO 838
IFR GPS Navigation 853
IFR GPS Utility 865
IFR GPS Desirability 893
IFR GPS Navigation 895
IFR GPS Utility 897
IFR Installation 899
Panel Mount IFR GPS Advice 924
Panel Mount IFR GPS Advice 926

lxx
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Portable vs. IFR Panel Mount 931

IFR GPS Navigation 955
IFR GPS Utility 957
Emergency IMC Descent 113
O-470/ IO -470 Powered Bonanza’s 460
IO -470K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO-5 532
IO-470K to IO -470N, IO-520 or IO-550 532
IO-470K to IO-470N, IO -520 or IO-550 Conversion 532
IO-470K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO -550 Conversion 532
IO -470K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO-5 534
IO-470K to IO -470N, IO-520 or IO-550 534
IO-470K to IO-470N, IO -520 or IO-550 Conversion 534
IO-470K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO -550 Conversion 534
IO -470K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO-5 536
IO-470K to IO -470N, IO-520 or IO-550 536
IO-470K to IO-470N, IO -520 or IO-550 Conversion 536
IO-470K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO -550 Conversion 536
IO -470K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO-5 537
IO-470K to IO -470N, IO-520 or IO-550 537
IO-470K to IO-470N, IO -520 or IO-550 Conversion 537
IO-470K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO -550 Conversion 537
IO -470 Conversion 538
IO -470 vs. IO-520 540
IO-470 vs. IO -520 540
IO -470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO-550 541
IO-470 vs. IO -520 vs. IO-550 541
IO-470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO -550 541
IO -470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO-550 542
IO-470 vs. IO -520 vs. IO-550 542
IO-470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO -550 542
IO -470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO-550 543
IO-470 vs. IO -520 vs. IO-550 543
IO-470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO -550 543
IO -470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO-550 vs. 545
IO-470 vs. IO -520 vs. IO-550 vs. Turbo 545
IO-470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO -550 vs. Turbo 545
IO -470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO-550 vs. 547
IO-470 vs. IO -520 vs. IO-550 vs. Turbo 547
IO-470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO -550 vs. Turbo 547
IO -470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO-550 vs. 549
IO-470 vs. IO -520 vs. IO-550 vs. Turbo 549
IO-470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO -550 vs. Turbo 549
IO -470 vs. IO-550 - fuel flow 551
IO-470 vs. IO -550 - fuel flow 551
IO -520 vs. IO-550 - Prop 552
IO-520 vs. IO -550 - Prop 552

lxxi
CONTENTS CONTENTS

IO -550 - Automatic Mixture 554

IO -550 - Automatic Mixture 555
IO -550 Colemill Conversion 556
IO -550 Conversion 558
IO -550 Conversion 560
IO -550 Conversion 561
IO -550 Conversion 562
IO -550 Conversion 564
IO -550 Platinum Engine 565
IO -550 or IO-520 for T-34? 566
IO-550 or IO -520 for T-34? 566
IO -550 or IO-520 for T-34? 568
IO-550 or IO -520 for T-34? 568
IO -550 Conversion and 3 Bladed 727
IO -550 Conversion and Three Bladed 728
IO -550 Conversion and Three Bladed 729
IO -550 Conversion and Two Bladed 730
IO -550 Conversion and Two Bladed 731
IO -550 and Two Bladed Prop 732
Turbonormalizer and IO -470 803
IO -470-C Injector Torque 1080
Airframe Ice 100
Airframe Ice 102
Airframe Ice and OAT Ram Rise 104
PS5C Pressure Carb Icing 592
Alternate Means of Identifying a Fix 216
Idle Speed 1044
Idle Speed 1371
Cruise Setting and Ignition Timing 1351
Elevator Trim Indicator Dial Illumination 1124
Reporting ”Procedure Turn Inbound ” 46
Engine Upgrade and Gross Weight Increase 527
Gross Weight Increase 760
Gross Weight Increase 761
Gross Weight Increase 762
Gross Weight Increase 763
Gross Weight Increase 764
Gross Weight Increase 765
Gross Weight Increase 766
Gross Weight Increase - Category 767
Failed Attitude Indicator 119
Loss of Airspeed Indicator /Heated Pitot Tube 140
Mechanical Tach Indicator Error 280
Gear Position Indicator 624
Gear Position Indicator 625
Gear Position Indicator 626

lxxii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Gear Position Indicator 627

Gear Position Indicator 628
Gear Position Indicator 629
Gear Position Indicator 630
Gear Position Indicator 631
Gear Position Indicator 633
Gear Position Indicator 634
Gear Position Indicator 636
Shadin Fuel Flow Indicator Problem 1086
Three Light Gear Position Indicator System 1109
Elevator Trim Indicator Dial Illumination 1124
Carb Heat/Carb Temp Indicator 1345
Gear Position Indicator 1496
Landing Gear Position Indicator 1497
Adverse Yaw Induced By the Differential Action 180
Intrument Air Induction Hose ”S” Curve 1258
Strut Inflation 1197
Water Injection 1014
Fuel Injector Nossles - Balancing 606
IO-470-C Injector Torque 1080
GAMI Injectors and Balancing Fuel Flows 528
GAMI Injectors and Balancing Fuel Flows 530
Blue Dye Around Injectors 1073
Ram Air Inlet 574
Inner Gear Doors Holes 1097
Barometric Data Input 868
Insight Verses JPI 262
Insight Verses JPI Verses Shadin 263
Erratic Insight GEM 1074
Inspection 1098
Annual Inspection 1113
Rear Bulkhead Inspection 1154
Spar Crack Inspection 1187
Annual Inspection Discrepancy 1256
Annual Inspections 1114
Annual Inspections 1115
Towing With Gust Lock Installed 1525
IFR Flight Instruction 203
Dual Yoke - Instruction 676
Dual Yoke - Instruction 678
Field Approvals - Instructions for Continued 750
Verifying Instrument Operation 177
Water in Static System and Instrument Failure 178
Instrument Training/Flying the 204
Primary Engine Instrument Replacement 288
Instrument Panel Color 988

lxxiii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Use of GPS as Backup Instrumentation 175

of Redundant Electric and Air Instrumentation 375
of Redundant Electric and Air Instrumentation 377
of Redundant Electric and Air Instrumentation 379
of Redundant Electric and Air Instrumentation 382
Standby Instrumentation 391
Standby Instrumentation 392
Standby Instrumentation 393
Standby Instrumentation 394
Standby Instrumentation 395
Standby Instrumentation 396
Standby Instrumentation 397
Failure Modes and Backup Instruments 122
Recognizing Failed Instruments 153
Recognizing Failed Instruments 154
Recognizing Failed Instruments 157
IFR Flight Instruments 277
Used Instruments 311
Primary Instrunction in a Bonanza 462
Avionics Advice - Highly Integrated or Not? 330
Alcor/ InterAv Alternator 489
InterAv Alternator Pully Alignment 492
Interav Alternator 494
Interesting Approaches 42
Intrument Air Induction Hose ”S” 1258
Iridium Plugs 1045
Yaw Dampeners and Big Iron 255
Itzhak Jacoby NTSB Factual Report 133
Insight Verses JPI 262
Insight Verses JPI Verses Shadin 263
JPI Reset Problem 264
Cooling Jacket 812
Itzhak Jacoby NTSB Factual Report 133
Jammed Nose Gear/Bug Replacement 638
Jammed Nose Gear 639
Jammed Nose Gear 640
Jammed Nose Gear 642
Jammed Nose Gear 643
Jamming 901
Jepp Charts 1280
Eclipse Personal Jet 681
Eclipse Personal Jet 682
Eclipse Jet 1271
Eclipse Jet 1272
IO-470 K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO-550 532
IO-470 K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO-550 534

lxxiv
CONTENTS CONTENTS

IO-470 K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO-550 536

IO-470 K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO-550 537
King KT -76C Transponder 343
King KT-76C Transponder 343
LNAV Approach 1321
LOP Operation 1422
LOP Opeartion 1501
LOP Operation 1503
LOP Operation 1504
LOP Operation 1506
LORAN as Backup Navigation System 344
LORAN as Backup Navigation System 345
Changing Tanks and Pre Landing Checklist 18
Crosswing Landing - Fuel Unporting 31
Emergency Landing : Gear Up or Down? 114
Gear Up Landing : Paved or Turf Runway? 125
Gear Up Landing : Paved or Turf Runway? 127
Gear Up Landing : Paved or Turf Runway? 128
One Main Landing Gear Won’t Extend 148
When to Retract the Landing Gear 195
Pulsing Landing Lights 698
Pulsing Landing Lights 699
Gear Up Landing and FAA 1093
Main Landing Gear Strut Removal and 1102
Main Landing Gear Strut Removal and 1103
Landing Gear Position Indicator 1497
Crosswind Landings 23
Crosswind Landings 24
Night Landings 43
Night Landings 44
Large Capacity Tip Tanks 770
Large Capacity Tip Tanks 771
Laser Gyros 347
Laser Gyros 348
Laser Gyros 350
Rear Window Latch 1156
Panel Layout 922
Lead in Fuel as Lubricant 1372
Oil Leak 1046
Leaking Quick Drain 613
Leaking Quick Drain 1081
Leaking Sump Drains 1082
Nose Strut Leaking 1108
Lean to Best Power 1373
Leaning 569
PS5C Pressure Carb - Leaning for Takeoff and Climb 593

lxxv
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Leaning 1374
Leaning 1376
Leaning 1423
Leaning 1424
Leaning 1425
Leaning 1427
Leaning 1429
Leaning 1430
Leaning /Preheat 1431
Legal Parts 1239
Rear Seats - Legal to Remove? 1252
Risk and Comfort Level 162
Gear Case Oil Level 1091
Gearbox Oil Level 1095
Desired Fuel Level 1445
Backup Wing Leveler 238
Backup Wing Leveler 239
Ground Station License 342
Life Rafts 1282
Life Rafts 1284
Tip Tanks Provide Lift ? 781
Starter Hang Up Warning Light 505
Three Light Gear Position Indicator 1109
Lighting Strike 138
Pulsing Landing Lights 698
Pulsing Landing Lights 699
Endurance and Evaluating One’s Limits 116
Wartime Training and Lindbergh 1018
Oil Pressure Gauge Line Restrictor 284
Optimal Antenna Location 226
Optimal Antenna Location 227
Optimal Antenna Location 228
Optimal Antenna Location 229
Gear Retraction Switch Location 452
Fuel Tank Selector Valve Location 610
Gear Switch Location 637
Antenna Location 824
DME Location Fix 826
Magneto Timing Buzz Box/Down Lock Tension Measuring Device 1137
Towing With Gust Lock Installed 1525
Locking Fuel Tank Caps 614
Control Locks 436
Control Locks 669
Logging time - Tach or Hobbs? 1285
Engine Longevity 1363
Engine Longevity 1365

lxxvi
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Loose Cowl Flaps/Nose Gear Doors 1100

Losing a Blade 991
Loss of Airspeed Indicator/Heated 140
Loss of Control - Stop the Turn! 142
Loss of Control - Stop the Turn! 143
Loss of Control - Stop the Turn! 144
Loss of Control - Stop the Turn! ( 146
Loss of Control, AP, and Turn 278
Airspeed Loss 753
Airliner A/P and Loss of Control Authority 962
Low Static RPM/Poor Performance 1379
Fuel Flow with Low power and Full Flaps 1450
Lead in Fuel as Lubricant 1372
Geraed Lycoming Engine 986
Descent Below MDA 29
Descent Below MDA 30
DH vs. MDA 1318
Approaches under a MOA 1317
Maximum MP 1381
RPM vs. MP 1407
RPM vs. MP 1409
Machen 350 Conversion 571
Magnesium Ruddervators 454
Magnesium Ruddervators 1136
Magnesium Ruddervators 1212
Magneto Timing Buzz Box/Down Lock 1137
Slick vs. Bendix Mags 575
Slick vs. Bendix Mags 576
Slick vs. Bendix Mags 577
Slick vs. Bendix Mags 578
Mailing List 958
One Main Landing Gear Won’t Extend 148
Greasing Main Gear Trunnion Bolts and 1096
Main Landing Gear Strut Removal 1102
Main Landing Gear Strut Removal 1103
Main Gear Strut Rebuilding 1139
Main Gear Strut Rebuilding 1213
Brittain Maintenance 241
Brittain Maintenance 242
Owner Maintenance 1146
Owner Maintenance 1147
Reccurring Maintenance 1157
CD-ROM Maintenance Documentaion 1232
CD-ROM Maintenance Documentation 1233
Owner Maintenance 1241
Owner Maintenance 1242

lxxvii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Owner Maintenance 1243

Owner Maintenance 1244
Vaccum Pump Installation and Maintenance 1259
Power Management 495
Fuel Management 1451
Fuel Management 1534
Manual Gear Extention 1498
Manual Gear Extention 1499
Manually Adjustable Spark Advance 572
Manually Retracting Gear 646
Moving Map 902
AD 98-13-02 - Slippage Mark 1058
Marker Beacon Receiver Required? 257
Marker Beacon Operation 351
Flap Markings 1070
DG - Degree Hash Marks 335
Pitot Mast Screws 1150
Battery Master - Old Style 1024
Battery Master - Old Style 1025
Battery Master - Old Style 1026
Max Power 1434
Straight 35 Max Power 1440
Maximizing Range and Payload 1460
Maximum MP 1381
Straight 35 Maximum Power 1442
McCain 1286
McCauley 409 and 409 Three Bladed 733
Alternate Means of Identifying a Fix 216
PS5C Pressure Carb - Fuel Flow Measurements 591
Buzz Box/Down Lock Tension Measuring Device 1137
Measuring Airspeed 1140
Mechanical Tach Indicator Error 280
Rear Seat Structural Member 465
Novel Method to Stop 70
Metric Compass 1287
Metric Compass 1288
Meyers 200 993
Meyers 200 995
Meyers 200 1016
Tires - Michelin vs. Flight Customs 650
Approach Minima 1312
Approaches Minima 1315
Minimum Fuel Requirement AD 615
Missed Approach - Nav Failure 47
Mooney Mite and Crosley Engine 1000
IO-550 - Automatic Mixture Compensation 554

lxxviii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

IO-550 - Automatic Mixture Compensation 555

Mixture Position After Shutdown 1383
Mixture and Mountain Flying 1385
Power Off Mixture Position 1436
Early Model Wing Design 449
G Model Twin 985
Model 17 996
Model 36 998
Model 36 Name 999
C and D Models 433
Models with Canted Engine 455
Failure Modes and Backup Instruments 122
Speed Mods 1188
Speed Mods 1189
Speed Mods 1190
Speed Mods 1191
Speed Mods 1193
Speed Mods 1194
Mooney vs. Bonanza 457
Mooney Mite and Crosley Engine 1000
Gear Box and Motor 1090
Canted Mount 524
Straight Mount Engine Faster? 579
Yoke Mount 850
Yoke Mount 851
Panel Mount IFR GPS Advice 924
Panel Mount IFR GPS Advice 926
Panel Mount Unit Comparison 927
Panel Mount Unit Features 929
Portable vs. IFR Panel Mount 931
Mixture and Mountain Flying 1385
Fluxgate Valve Mounting 341
Moving Map 902
Muffler Rebuild 1066
Staggerwing Museum 1002
IO-470K to IO-470 N , IO-520 or IO-550 Conversion 532
IO-470K to IO-470 N , IO-520 or IO-550 Conversion 534
IO-470K to IO-470 N , IO-520 or IO-550 Conversion 536
IO-470K to IO-470 N , IO-520 or IO-550 Conversion 537
GPS/ NDB Approaches 829
NDB Approach Design 1322
NDB Approach Design 1325
NDB Approach Design 1326
Itzhak Jacoby NTSB Factual Report 133
Missed Approach - Nav Failure 47
Nav Data 904

lxxix
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Nav Data 906

Nav Data 907
Nav Data 908
Nav Data 910
Nav Data 912
Nav Data 914
Nav Data 915
Nav Data 917
Nav Data Alternative 918
Nav Data 952
Nav Data 959
LORAN as Backup Navigation System 344
LORAN as Backup Navigation System 345
IFR GPS Navigation 853
Enroute Navigation 859
Enroute Navigation 861
IFR GPS Navigation 895
Non-Certified Navigation Equipment 949
IFR GPS Navigation 955
New RNAV Approaches 839
New RNAV Approaches 841
New Approaches and FAA 1327
New Approachs and FAA 1329
Night Landings 43
Night Landings 44
No Pneumatic System? 813
No Pneumatic System? 814
Noise 1517
Non -Certified Navigation Equipment 949
Non Precision vs. Constant Descent 1331
Non Precision vs. Constant Descent 1334
Airspeed - Greater Than Normal 38
Northstar CT1000 353
Northstar 919
Nose Bowl 459
Jammed Nose Gear/Bug Replacement 638
Jammed Nose Gear 639
Jammed Nose Gear 640
Jammed Nose Gear 642
Jammed Nose Gear 643
Nose Gear Steering 647
Nose Wheel Tow Pins 694
Loose Cowl Flaps/ Nose Gear Doors 1100
Nose Gear Door 1104
Nose Gear Doors 1106
Nose Strut Leaking 1108

lxxx
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Nose Weight 1141

Fuel Injector Nossles - Balancing 606
Advice - Highly Integrated or Not ? 330
Novel Method to Stop 70
Now They Are Shooting At Us! 1290
performance Numbers 1528
Airframe Ice and OAT Ram Rise 104
OAT Ram Rise 281
OAT Ram Rise 282
OAT Ram Rise 283
OWT 1518
Owner/Operator Sign Off 1240
Power Off Mixture Position 1436
Oil Pressure Gauge Line Restrictor 284
Air/ Oil Separator 510
Oil Consumption 573
Oil Preassure Gauge 581
Air/ Oil Separators 811
Wet Vacuum Pumps and Air/ Oil Separators 817
Oil Leak 1046
Oil Temperature 1047
Oil Type 1049
Gear Case Oil Level 1091
Gearbox Oil Level 1095
Oil Filter Torque 1142
Oil Filter Torque 1143
Battery Master - Old Style 1024
Battery Master - Old Style 1025
Battery Master - Old Style 1026
Endurance and Evaluating One ’s Limits 116
One Main Landing Gear Won’t Extend 148
Prop - Which One ? 596
Climb Opeartion 1347
LOP Opeartion 1501
Throttle Stuck Open 174
Rear Window - Opening In Flight 700
Verifying Instrument Operation 177
Yaw Dampener Operation 252
Marker Beacon Operation 351
Cold Weather Operation 667
Cold Weather Operation 668
Airliner Engine Operation and CHT 963
Aspen Operation 966
Single Pilot Operation 1293
Oversquare Operation 1390
Oversquare Operation 1391

lxxxi
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Oversquare Operation 1392

Oversquare Operation 1393
LOP Operation 1422
LOP Operation 1503
LOP Operation 1504
LOP Operation 1506
Cold Weather Operation 1508
Cold Weather Operation 1510
Operational Procedures 71
Owner/ Operator Sign Off 1240
Optimal Antenna Location 226
Optimal Antenna Location 227
Optimal Antenna Location 228
Optimal Antenna Location 229
Yoke Orientation 1211
BDS vs. Brittian ( Osborne ) 756
Brittain ( Osborne ) 758
Osborne Tank Fuel Cap 1083
Outages 921
Field Overhaul 1040
Oversquare 1386
Oversquare 1388
Oversquare Operation 1390
Oversquare Operation 1391
Oversquare Operation 1392
Oversquare Operation 1393
Overweight Bonanza? 1144
Owner Maintenance 1146
Owner Maintenance 1147
Owner /Operator Sign Off 1240
Owner Maintenance 1241
Owner Maintenance 1242
Owner Maintenance 1243
Owner Maintenance 1244
Portable Oxygen Systems 1291
Portable Oxygen Systems 1304
Older Bonanza’s and Bendix PS 5C Carb 461
PS 5C Pressure Carb 589
PS 5C Pressure Carb - Fuel Flow 591
PS 5C Pressure Carb Icing 592
PS 5C Pressure Carb - Leaning for 593
Painting the Gear 1149
Painting Propeller Tips 1225
Partial Panel 150
Panel Configuration 285
Panel Configuration 287

lxxxii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Panel Configuration and Clock 354

Panel Construction 355
Panel Construction 356
Panel Construction 357
Panel Construction 358
Panel Layout 922
Panel Mount IFR GPS Advice 924
Panel Mount IFR GPS Advice 926
Panel Mount Unit Comparison 927
Panel Mount Unit Features 929
Portable vs. IFR Panel Mount 931
Instrument Panel Color 988
Electroluminscent Panel Repair? 1031
Cool Down After Parking 1511
Cool Down After Parking 1512
Hydraulic Parking Brakes 1516
Selection Partial Flaps 9
Partial Panel 150
Legal Parts 1239
Flying a Proper Pattern 67
Flying a Proper Pattern 69
Gear Up Landing: Paved or Turf Runway? 125
Gear Up Landing: Paved or Turf Runway? 127
Gear Up Landing: Paved or Turf Runway? 128
Maximizing Range and Payload 1460
Retractable Step Speed Penalty 703
Retractable Step Speed Penalty 704
Retractable Step Speed Penalty 705
Low Static RPM/Poor Performance 1379
Ferry Permit 1234
Eclipse Personal Jet 681
Eclipse Personal Jet 682
Safety and Design Philosophy 163
Is a VFR Bonanza Pilot Safe? 132
Risk and Additional Pilot 160
Single Pilot Operation 1293
Young Pilots 1302
Nose Wheel Tow Pins 694
Frozen Pitot Tube 124
of Airspeed Indicator/Heated Pitot Tube 140
Pitot Tube 695
Pitot Mast Screws 1150
Placard REquired by AD 1245
Chart and Approach Plate Storage 665
GPS Stuff, RNAV Approach Plates 831
IO-550 Platinum Engine 565

lxxxiii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Fine Wire Plugs 1041

Iridium Plugs 1045
Fuel Guages and Plumbing 759
Plumbing 773
Plumbing 774
No Pneumatic System? 813
No Pneumatic System? 814
Visual Decent Point (VDP) Usefulness 49
Low Static RPM/ Poor Performance 1379
Portable O2 System 696
Portable vs. IFR Panel Mount 931
Portable Oxygen Systems 1291
Portable Oxygen Systems 1304
Gear Position Indicator 624
Gear Position Indicator 625
Gear Position Indicator 626
Gear Position Indicator 627
Gear Position Indicator 628
Gear Position Indicator 629
Gear Position Indicator 630
Gear Position Indicator 631
Gear Position Indicator 633
Gear Position Indicator 634
Gear Position Indicator 636
Flap Position Decal 687
Static Wicks and Flap Position Decals 715
Three Light Gear Position Indicator System 1109
Mixture Position After Shutdown 1383
Power Off Mixture Position 1436
Gear Position Indicator 1496
Landing Gear Position Indicator 1497
Post Accident Blues 151
Power Management 495
Power Setting/Weight 1059
Best Power 1344
Climb Power 1348
Criuse Power Setting 1349
Cruise Power Setting 1350
Lean to Best Power 1373
Power Setting 1395
Power Setting 1396
Power Setting 1398
Power Setting 1400
Power Settings 1402
Max Power 1434
Power Off Mixture Position 1436

lxxxiv
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Power Settings/Weight 1437

Straight 35 Max Power 1440
Straight 35 Maximum Power 1442
O-470/IO-470 Powered Bonanza’s 460
Upgrade Practacality 1202
Restoration Practicality 1168
Changing Tanks and Pre Landing Checklist 18
Oil Preassure Gauge 581
Non Precision vs. Constant Descent 1331
Non Precision vs. Constant Descent 1334
Leaning/ Preheat 1431
Preheat /Primer 1439
Oil Pressure Gauge Line Restrictor 284
PS5C Pressure Carb 589
PS5C Pressure Carb - Fuel Flow 591
PS5C Pressure Carb Icing 592
PS5C Pressure Carb - Leaning for 593
Primary Engine Instrument 288
Primary Instrunction in a Bonanza 462
Primer 594
Preheat/ Primer 1439
CHT Probes 260
CHT Probes 261
JPI Reset Problem 264
Wobble Pump Problem 1063
Shadin Fuel Flow Indicator Problem 1086
Hartzell AD Problems 1135
Reporting ” Procedure Turn Inbound” 46
Operational Procedures 71
Productive Flight Traning 205
Prop Deice 486
IO-520 vs. IO-550 - Prop 552
Beech Electric Prop 586
Prop 595
Prop - Which One? 596
Prop - Which one? 597
Difference Between 406 and 409 Prop 721
Four Blade Prop 722
Four Blade Prop 723
Four Blade Prop 724
Four Bladed Prop 726
IO-550 Conversion and 3 Bladed Prop 727
550 Conversion and Three Bladed Prop 728
550 Conversion and Three Bladed Prop 729
-550 Conversion and Two Bladed Prop 730
-550 Conversion and Two Bladed Prop 731

lxxxv
CONTENTS CONTENTS

IO-550 and Two Bladed Prop 732

409 and 409 Three Bladed Prop 733
Prop De-ice/Anti-ice 734
Prop Deice 736
Three Blade Prop 737
Three vs. Four Bladed Prop 738
Three vs. Two Blade Prop 739
Three vs. Two Blade Prop 741
Three vs. Two Blade Prop 742
Three vs. Two Blade Prop 743
Which Prop ? 746
Aeromatic Prop 748
Tip Tanks and Three Bladed Prop 795
Teardown - Prop Strike 1054
Turning Prop Backwards 1055
Approach ROM - Prop Speed on Approach 1340
Excessive Prop Cycling 1530
Excessive Prop Cycling 1531
Stopping the Prop in Flight 1532
Painting Propeller Tips 1225
Flying a Proper Pattern 67
Flying a Proper Pattern 69
Pros and Cons 776
Tip Tanks Provide Lift? 781
Pulling up the assist step, was 1151
InterAv Alternator Pully Alignment 492
Pulsing Landing Lights 698
Pulsing Landing Lights 699
Thompson Fuel Pump 598
Hand Wobble Pump - Switching Tanks 612
Transfer Pump 619
Two Speed Fuel Pump 620
Vacuum Pump - Wet vs. Dry 816
Wobble Pump Problem 1063
Vaccum Pump Installation and Maintenance 1259
Vacuum Pump Replacement 1260
Wet vs. Dry Vacuum Pump 1261
Boost Pump Use 1444
Wet Vacuum Pumps and Air/Oil Separators 817
Wobble and Electric Boost Pumps 1064
Purchase 1153
Purchasing a T&B 289
Purchasing a T&B 291
Questions Regarding M35 to P35 463
Leaking Quick Drain 613
Leaking Quick Drain 1081

lxxxvi
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Quick Drain 1084

Quick Drains 1085
RADAR 401
RADAR 402
RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, 403
RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, 405
RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, 408
RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, 410
RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, 412
RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, 821
RAIM 932
Placard REquired by AD 1245
GPS Stuff, RNAV Approach Plates 831
New RNAV Approaches 839
New RNAV Approaches 841
CD- ROM Maintenance Documentaion 1232
CD- ROM Maintenance Documentation 1233
Approach ROM - Prop Speed on Approach 1340
Approach Engine RPM 4
Approach Engine RPM 5
Static RPM 1051
Approach RPM 1342
Low Static RPM /Poor Performance 1379
RPM During Climb 1404
RPM for Takeoff 1406
RPM vs. MP 1407
RPM vs. MP 1409
Teaching the Radio Range 211
Last Radio Range 990
Life Rafts 1282
Life Rafts 1284
Airframe Ice and OAT Ram Rise 104
OAT Ram Rise 281
OAT Ram Rise 282
OAT Ram Rise 283
Ram Air Inlet 574
Teaching the Radio Range 211
Last Radio Range 990
Maximizing Range and Payload 1460
Rapco Standy Vacuum System 384
Precision vs. Constant Descent Rate Approaches 1331
Precision vs. Constant Descent Rate Approaches 1334
Baffling - Raytheon Air Scoop 521
Re -Weighing 1246
Re -Weighing and Equipment List 1248
Re -Weighing and Equipment List 1250

lxxxvii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Rear Seat Structural Member 465

Rear Window - Opening In Flight 700
Rear Seat 1062
Rear Bulkhead Inspection 1154
Rear Seat Removal 1155
Rear Window Latch 1156
Rear Seats - Legal to Remove? 1252
Muffler Rebuild 1066
Landing Gear Strut Removal and Rebuild ? 1102
Landing Gear Strut Removal and Rebuild ? 1103
Main Gear Strut Rebuilding 1139
Main Gear Strut Rebuilding 1213
Reccurring Maintenance 1157
Marker Beacon Receiver Required? 257
Recognizing Failed Instruments 153
Recognizing Failed Instruments 154
Recognizing Failed Instruments 157
Electronic Tach - Recording Flight Time 273
Electronic Tach - Recording Flight Time 274
Redesign the Entire Cockpit? 466
Desirability of Redundant Electric and Air 375
Desirability of Redundant Electric and Air 377
Desirability of Redundant Electric and Air 379
Desirability of Redundant Electric and Air 382
Questions Regarding M35 to P35 463
Regulation 1253
Reliability of Avionic Computers 359
Remote Compass 292
Fixed Step - Removal 685
Battery Box Removal 1022
Main Landing Gear Strut Removal and Rebuild? 1102
Main Landing Gear Strut Removal and Rebuild? 1103
Rear Seat Removal 1155
Rear Seats - Legal to Remove ? 1252
Removing the Wings 1158
Electroluminscent Panel Repair ? 1031
Fuel Cell Repair 1078
Primary Engine Instrument Replacement 288
DME Desirability/GPS Replacement for DME 338
CHT Replacement 583
Jammed Nose Gear/Bug Replacement 638
Replacement Heim Bearings 1159
Replacement Zerk Fittings 1161
Vacuum Pump Replacement 1260
Replacing The Step 1162
Replacing the Step 1163

lxxxviii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Replacing the Step 1164

Replacing the Step 1165
Repllacement Heim Bearings 1166
Itzhak Jacoby NTSB Factual Report 133
Reporting ”Procedure Turn Inbound” 46
Required Equipment for IFR Flight 73
Marker Beacon Receiver Required ? 257
Required Equipment 361
Minimum Fuel Requirement AD 615
Fuel Boarding Requirement 1446
Full Boarding Requirement 1458
Fuel Boarding Requirements 1448
Fuel Boarding Requirements 1449
Fuel Reserve 1453
Reserve Fuel 1462
JPI Reset Problem 264
Autopilot and GPS Resolver 236
Resolver /Serializer 933
Resolver /Serializer 934
Resolver /Serializer 937
Exhaust Resonators 684
Restoration Practicality 1168
Oil Pressure Gauge Line Restrictor 284
When to Retract the Landing Gear 195
Retractable Step 702
Retractable Step Speed Penalty 703
Retractable Step Speed Penalty 704
Retractable Step Speed Penalty 705
Retractable Step 1169
Retractable Step 1171
Retractable Step 1172
Manually Retracting Gear 646
Gear Retraction Switch Location 452
Reusing Tire Tubes 648
Reusing Tire Tubes 649
Rigging 706
Cowl Flap Rigging 1118
Flap Rigging 1128
Rigging 1173
Rigging 1174
Rigging 1175
Rigging 1176
Rigging 1177
Rigging 1178
Rigging 1180
Rigging 1182

lxxxix
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Right Flap needs reskinned? 1071

Fuel Cap ”O” Rings 1076
Fuel Cap O- Rings 1077
Airframe Ice and OAT Ram Rise 104
OAT Ram Rise 281
OAT Ram Rise 282
OAT Ram Rise 283
Engine Failure and Risk 118
IFR Flight Risk 130
Risk and Additional Pilot 160
Risk and Comfort Level 162
Accidents and Risk 1264
Flush Rivets 451
Actuator Rod End 1089
Aileron Bearing Rod Ends 1216
Aileron Bearing Rod Ends 1217
Aileron Bearing Rod Ends 1218
Ruddervator Rod Ends 1219
Ruddervator Rod Ends 1220
Ruddervator Rod Ends 1221
Ruddervator Rod Ends 1222
Ruddervator Rod Ends 1223
Roger vs. Wilco 1292
Aileron Roll 1266
Aileron Rolls 52
Aileron Rolls 54
Compass Rose and Swinging a Compass 267
Rosen Sun Visor’s 707
Rosen Sun Visors 708
Rotating Beacon 709
Rotating Beacons 711
Routing /Clearences and Aircraft 76
Routing /Clearences and Aircraft 78
”Direct” Routing 213
”Direct” Routing and Aircraft Heading 215
Static Wicks and Ruddervator Balance 368
Ruddervator Bob Weights 467
Ruddervator Rod Ends 1219
Ruddervator Rod Ends 1220
Ruddervator Rod Ends 1221
Ruddervator Rod Ends 1222
Ruddervator Rod Ends 1223
Magnesium Ruddervators 454
Magnesium Ruddervators 1136
Magnesium Ruddervators 1212
Running Tank Dry 1463

xc
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Running Tank Dry 1465

Running Tank Dry 1466
Running Tank Dry 1467
Running Tank Dry 1471
Running Tank Dry 1472
Running Tank Dry 1473
Running Tank Dry 1474
Running Tank Dry 1475
Running Tank Dry 1476
Running Tank Dry 1477
Running Tank Dry 1479
Running Tank Dry 1481
Running Tank Dry 1482
Running Tank Dry 1484
Running Tank Dry 1485
Running Tank Dry/Fuel Capacity 1486
Running Tanks Dry 1488
Running Tanks Dry 1489
Gear Up Landing: Paved or Turf Runway ? 125
Gear Up Landing: Paved or Turf Runway ? 127
Gear Up Landing: Paved or Turf Runway ? 128
S -Tec and Century IIB 245
S -Tec and Century IIB 246
S -Tec and Century IIB 247
Differences Between S 35’s and V35’s 442
Air Skeg/restoring the S -35 1111
Intrument Air Induction Hose ” S ” Curve 1258
SA 938
SA 939
Unavailable STC ’s 751
STC ’s and Field Approvals 1254
Is a VFR Bonanza Pilot Safe ? 132
Safety and Design Philosophy 163
V-tail Safety 480
Sandel and GPS display 258
Sandel HSI 363
Sandel HSI 364
Sandel HSI 365
Sandel HSI - Bulb Failure 366
Saunders Spar Strap’ 1184
Baffling - Raytheon Air Scoop 521
Gap Seals 688
Gap Seals 689
5th or 6th Seat 421
Rear Seat Structural Member 465
Rear Seat 1062

xci
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Rear Seat Removal 1155

Bonanza Seating 663
5th and 6th Seats 653
Rear Seats - Legal to Remove? 1252
The Secret - Weight 477
See and Avoid 165
See and Avoid 166
Selection Partial Flaps 9
Battery Selection 1027
Fuel Tank Selector Valve Location 610
Self Contained, Standby AI or T&B 385
Self Contained, Standby AI or T&B 387
Self Contained, Standby AI or T&B 388
Standby Alternator and AC Fuel Senders 502
Solid State Sensors 249
Air/Oil Separator 510
Air/Oil Separators 811
Wet Vacuum Pumps and Air/Oil Separators 817
Resolver/ Serializer 933
Resolver/ Serializer 934
Resolver/ Serializer 937
Serializer 940
E- Series Engine 443
Fuel Cell Service Advice 603
Flap Setting 64
Flap Setting 65
Power Setting /Weight 1059
Criuse Power Setting 1349
Cruise Power Setting 1350
Cruise Setting and Ignition Timing 1351
Power Setting 1395
Power Setting 1396
Power Setting 1398
Power Setting 1400
Power Settings 1402
Power Settings /Weight 1437
RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder, 403
RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder, 405
RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder, 408
RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder, 410
RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder, 412
RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder, 821
Insight Verses JPI Verses Shadin 263
Shadin Fuel Flow Indicator Problem 1086
Shock Cooling 1411
Now They Are Shooting At Us! 1290

xcii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Working with the Shop 1209

Use of Flaps/ Short Field Takeoff 193
Chasing Shorts 1028
Chasing Shorts 1029
Engine Cooling After Shutdown 1359
Engine Cooling After Shutdown 1360
Engine Cooling After Shutdown (was leaning) 1361
Mixture Position After Shutdown 1383
Owner/Operator Sign Off 1240
Single Verses Twin 167
Single vs. Twin 468
Single vs. Twin - Cessna Skymaster 470
Single Pilot Operation 1293
Cabin Size 434
Tires and Wheel Sizes 651
Air Skeg 656
Air Skeg /restoring the S-35 1111
Air Skegs 657
Single vs. Twin - Cessna Skymaster 470
Slick vs. Bendix Mags 575
Slick vs. Bendix Mags 576
Slick vs. Bendix Mags 577
Slick vs. Bendix Mags 578
AD 98-13-02 - Slippage Mark 1058
Speed Slope Windshield 714
Use of the Engine to Slow Down 1414
Twin Beech Society 1297
Solid State Sensors 249
Solo 1296
Sound Dampening 1185
Saunders Spar Strap’ 1184
Spar Crack Inspection 1187
Manually Adjustable Spark Advance 572
Approach Speed and Approach Category 6
Determining the Speed of an Aircraft 60
Determining the Speed of an Aircraft 62
Two Speed Fuel Pump 620
Gear Extension Speed 623
Retractable Step Speed Penalty 703
Retractable Step Speed Penalty 704
Retractable Step Speed Penalty 705
Speed Brakes 712
Speed Brakes 713
Speed Slope Windshield 714
Idle Speed 1044
Speed Mods 1188

xciii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Speed Mods 1189

Speed Mods 1190
Speed Mods 1191
Speed Mods 1193
Speed Mods 1194
Approach ROM - Prop Speed on Approach 1340
HP/ Speed /Fuel Flow 1369
Idle Speed 1371
Speed 1413
Gear Extention Speed 1494
Gear Extention Speed 1495
Tip Tanks - Effect on Speed ? 1535
Stall and Spin Traning 207
Stall and Spin Traning 209
Squawk 1400 Above 10,000 feet? 1001
Stability 778
Stability 780
Staggerwing Museum 1002
Twin Bonanza Stairs 1005
Stall and Spin Traning 207
Stall and Spin Traning 209
Standby Equipment 168
Self Contained, Standby AI or T&B 385
Self Contained, Standby AI or T&B 387
Self Contained, Standby AI or T&B 388
Standby AI 389
Standby Alternators - B&C Unit 390
Standby Instrumentation 391
Standby Instrumentation 392
Standby Instrumentation 393
Standby Instrumentation 394
Standby Instrumentation 395
Standby Instrumentation 396
Standby Instrumentation 397
Wind Verses Engine Driven Standby Alternators 399
Standby Alternator 497
Standby Alternator 498
Standby Alternator 500
Standby Alternator 501
Standby Alternator and AC Fuel 502
Standby Alternators 503
Rapco Standy Vacuum System Desirability 384
Starter Hang Up Warning Light 505
Hung Starter 1338
Hung Starter 1514
Hot Starts 1418

xciv
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Solid State Sensors 249

Water in Static System and Instrument 178
Static Wicks and Ruddervator 368
Strikefinder and Static Wicks 415
Alternate Static System 658
Static Wicks and Flap Position 715
Static RPM 1051
Emergency Static Vent 1125
Water in Static System 1205
Low Static RPM/Poor Performance 1379
Ground Station License 342
Nose Gear Steering 647
Fixed Step - Removal 685
Retractable Step 702
Retractable Step Speed Penalty 703
Retractable Step Speed Penalty 704
Retractable Step Speed Penalty 705
Fixed Step 1127
Replacing The Step 1162
Replacing the Step 1163
Replacing the Step 1164
Replacing the Step 1165
Retractable Step 1169
Retractable Step 1171
Retractable Step 1172
Stiff Cowl Flaps 1196
Novel Method to Stop 70
Loss of Control - Stop the Turn! 142
Loss of Control - Stop the Turn! 143
Loss of Control - Stop the Turn! 144
Loss of Control - Stop the Turn! (Demonstrating) 146
Stopping The Turn with a T&B 170
Stopping the Prop in Flight 1532
Chart and Approach Plate Storage 665
RADAR Verses Sferics ( Stormscope , Strikefinder, etc.) 403
RADAR Verses Sferics ( Stormscope , Strikefinder, etc.) 405
RADAR Verses Sferics ( Stormscope , Strikefinder, etc.) 408
RADAR Verses Sferics ( Stormscope , Strikefinder, etc.) 410
RADAR Verses Sferics ( Stormscope , Strikefinder, etc.) 412
Stormscope WX7A Verses 413
RADAR Verses Sferics ( Stormscope , Strikefinder, etc.) 821
Straight Tail vs. V-Tail 472
Straight Mount Engine Faster? 579
Straight 35 Max Power 1440
Straight 35 Maximum Power 1442
Saunders Spar Strap ’ 1184

xcv
CONTENTS CONTENTS

WX Avoidance Strategies 416

WX Avoidance Strategies 417
Structural Strength 474
Wing Strength 796
Bird Strike 106
Lighting Strike 138
Teardown - Prop Strike 1054
Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder , etc.) 403
Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder , etc.) 405
Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder , etc.) 408
Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder , etc.) 410
Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder , etc.) 412
Stormscope WX7A Verses Strikefinder 413
Strikefinder Display 414
Strikefinder and Static Wicks 415
Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder , etc.) 821
Strobe 717
Strobes - Wing Tip 507
Strobes 718
Rear Seat Structural Member 465
Structural Strength 474
Main Landing Gear Strut Removal and Rebuild? 1102
Main Landing Gear Strut Removal and Rebuild? 1103
Nose Strut Leaking 1108
Main Gear Strut Rebuilding 1139
Strut Inflation 1197
Main Gear Strut Rebuilding 1213
Throttle Stuck Open 174
GPS Stuff , RNAV Approach Plates 831
Go Fast Stuff 1132
”Blade” Style Antennas 218
”Blade” Style Antennas Installation 219
”Blade” Style Antennas Installation 221
”Blade” Style Antennas Verses Flying ”V” 222
”Blade” Style Antennas Verses Flying ”V” 223
AN Style DG 266
Battery Master - Old Style 1024
Battery Master - Old Style 1025
Battery Master - Old Style 1026
Leaking Sump Drains 1082
Fuel Sump Winged Fastener 1130
Finding Traffic Hidden by the Sun 63
Rosen Sun Visor’s 707
Rosen Sun Visors 708
Bonanza Super V 968
Compass Rose and Swinging a Compass 267

xcvi
CONTENTS CONTENTS

DME Hold Switch /Dual GS 340

Gear Retraction Switch Location 452
Gear Switch Location 637
Hand Wobble Pump - Switching Tanks 612
Electrical System Failure 109
Electrical System Failure 110
Water in Static System and Instrument Failure 178
LORAN as Backup Navigation System 344
LORAN as Backup Navigation System 345
Rapco Standy Vacuum System Desirability 384
Alternate Static System 658
Portable O2 System 696
No Pneumatic System ? 813
No Pneumatic System ? 814
Light Gear Position Indicator System 1109
Water in Static System 1205
Emergencies and Backup Systems 112
Portable Oxygen Systems 1291
Portable Oxygen Systems 1304
T &B vs. Turn Coordinator 80
Backup T &B 105
Failed Turn Coordinator and T &B’s 120
Stopping The Turn with a T &B 170
T &B Verses Turn Coordinator 171
Purchasing a T &B 289
Purchasing a T &B 291
T &B Verses Turn Coordinator 293
T &B Verses Turn Coordinator 296
T &B vs. Turn Coordinator 298
T &B vs. Turn Coordinator 303
T &B vs. Turn Coordinator 305
T &B vs. Turn Coordinator 309
T &B Verses Turn Coordinator 370
T &B Verses Turn Coordinator 372
Self Contained, Standby AI or T &B 385
Self Contained, Standby AI or T &B 387
Self Contained, Standby AI or T &B 388
IO-550 or IO-520 for T -34? 566
IO-550 or IO-520 for T -34? 568
V35A- TC 482
Baron E-55 TE -1152 (oddball serial number) 425
IFR TSO 838
Digital Tach 269
Electronic Tach 270
Electronic Tach 272
Electronic Tach - Recording Flight Time 273

xcvii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Electronic Tach - Recording Flight Time 274

Electronic Tach / mechanical 276
Mechanical Tach Indicator Error 280
Logging time - Tach or Hobbs? 1285
Brittain and Tactair Autopilots 243
Tail Wiggle 82
Tail Wiggle 84
Tail Wiggle 87
Tail Wiggle 90
Tail Wiggle 91
A36 vs. V- Tail Bonanza 424
Straight Tail vs. V-Tail 472
Straight Tail vs. V- Tail 472
V- Tail AD 719
Towing By the Tail 1522
Towing By the Tail 1523
Towing By the Tail 1524
Towing by the Tail 1527
Takeoff in an A36 186
Use of Flaps/Short Field Takeoff 193
5C Pressure Carb - Leaning for Takeoff and Climb 593
RPM for Takeoff 1406
Fuel Tank Baffle 608
Fuel Tank Selector Valve Location 610
Locking Fuel Tank Caps 614
Tank Baffles 616
Osborne Tank Fuel Cap 1083
Water In Tank 1087
Fuel Tank Unporting 1454
Running Tank Dry 1463
Running Tank Dry 1465
Running Tank Dry 1466
Running Tank Dry 1467
Running Tank Dry 1471
Running Tank Dry 1472
Running Tank Dry 1473
Running Tank Dry 1474
Running Tank Dry 1475
Running Tank Dry 1476
Running Tank Dry 1477
Running Tank Dry 1479
Running Tank Dry 1481
Running Tank Dry 1482
Running Tank Dry 1484
Running Tank Dry 1485
Running Tank Dry/Fuel Capacity 1486

xcviii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Tank Capacity 1491

Changing Tanks and Pre Landing Checklist 18
Hand Wobble Pump - Switching Tanks 612
Tip Tanks 617
Large Capacity Tip Tanks 770
Large Capacity Tip Tanks 771
Tip Tanks Provide Lift? 781
Tip Tanks Utility 782
Tip Tanks Utility 784
Tip Tanks Utility 786
Tip Tanks Utility 787
Tip Tanks Utility 788
Tip Tanks Utility 789
Tip Tanks Utility 791
Tip Tanks Utility 793
Tip Tanks and Three Bladed Prop 795
Weighing Accuracy/Tip Tanks 1206
Running Tanks Dry 1488
Running Tanks Dry 1489
Tip Tanks - Effect on Speed? 1535
Fuel Bladder Installation Tape 1075
Teaching the Radio Range 211
Teardown - Prop Strike 1054
S- Tec and Century IIB 245
S- Tec and Century IIB 246
S- Tec and Century IIB 247
Tie Down Technique 1519
Carb Heat/Carb Temp Indicator 1345
Oil Temperature 1047
Timing Buzz Box/Down Lock Tension Measuring Device 1137
Verneer Control Tension Adjustment 1203
Continental Engine Flight Test 974
Compression Test 1036
Test Flights 1198
Certificate Tests From the Ground? 972
Approach Airspeed - Greater Than Normal 38
Now They Are Shooting At Us! 1290
Thompson Fuel Pump 598
IO-550 Conversion and Three Bladed Prop 728
IO-550 Conversion and Three Bladed Prop 729
McCauley 409 and 409 Three Bladed Prop 733
Three Blade Prop 737
Three vs. Four Bladed Prop 738
Three vs. Two Blade Prop 739
Three vs. Two Blade Prop 741
Three vs. Two Blade Prop 742

xcix
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Three vs. Two Blade Prop 743

Tip Tanks and Three Bladed Prop 795
Three Light Gear Position 1109
Throttle Stuck Open 174
Tie Down Technique 1519
Tach - Recording Flight Time 273
Tach - Recording Flight Time 274
WWII pilot’s Total Time 1012
B777 Flight Time 1269
Magneto Timing Buzz Box/Down Lock Tension 1137
Cruise Setting and Ignition Timing 1351
Strobes - Wing Tip 507
Tip Tanks 617
Large Capacity Tip Tanks 770
Large Capacity Tip Tanks 771
Tip Tanks Provide Lift? 781
Tip Tanks Utility 782
Tip Tanks Utility 784
Tip Tanks Utility 786
Tip Tanks Utility 787
Tip Tanks Utility 788
Tip Tanks Utility 789
Tip Tanks Utility 791
Tip Tanks Utility 793
Tip Tanks and Three Bladed Prop 795
Weighing Accuracy/ Tip Tanks 1206
Tip Tanks - Effect on Speed? 1535
Painting Propeller Tips 1225
Reusing Tire Tubes 648
Reusing Tire Tubes 649
Tires - Michelin vs. Flight 650
Tires and Wheel Sizes 651
Tires - Balancing 1199
Dzus Fastener Tool 1123
IO-470-C Injector Torque 1080
Oil Filter Torque 1142
Oil Filter Torque 1143
Torque Wrenches Types 1200
Touch & Go’s 93
Touch and Go’s 95
Touch and Go’s 96
Nose Wheel Tow Pins 694
Towing 1520
Towing Backwards 1521
Towing By the Tail 1522
Towing By the Tail 1523

c
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Towing By the Tail 1524

Towing With Gust Lock Installed 1525
Towing backwards 1526
Towing by the Tail 1527
Finding Traffic Hidden by the Sun 63
Instrument Training /Flying the Compass 204
Wartime Training and Lindbergh 1018
Productive Flight Traning 205
Stall and Spin Traning 207
Stall and Spin Traning 209
Transfer Pump 619
King KT-76C Transponder 343
Aileron Trim 655
Electric Trim 683
Elevator Trim Indicator Dial Illumination 1124
Approach Trivia 1313
Greasing Main Gear Trunnion Bolts and Bushings 1096
Frozen Pitot Tube 124
Airspeed Indicator/Heated Pitot Tube 140
Pitot Tube 695
Reusing Tire Tubes 648
Reusing Tire Tubes 649
Tumbling the Gyro 310
Diesel and Gas Turbine Engines 438
Diesel and Gas Turbine Engines 440
-470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO-550 vs. Turbo 545
-470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO-550 vs. Turbo 547
-470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO-550 vs. Turbo 549
Turbonormalizer 802
Turbonormalizerand IO-470 803
Gear Up Landing: Paved or Turf Runway? 125
Gear Up Landing: Paved or Turf Runway? 127
Gear Up Landing: Paved or Turf Runway? 128
Reporting ”Procedure Turn Inbound” 46
T&B vs. Turn Coordinator 80
Failed Turn Coordinator and T&B’s 120
Loss of Control - Stop the Turn ! 142
Loss of Control - Stop the Turn ! 143
Loss of Control - Stop the Turn ! 144
Loss of Control - Stop the Turn ! (Demonstrating) 146
Stopping The Turn with a T&B 170
T&B Verses Turn Coordinator Verses AI 171
Loss of Control, AP, and Turn Coordinators 278
T&B Verses Turn Coordinator 293
T&B Verses Turn Coordinator 296
T&B vs. Turn Coordinator 298

ci
CONTENTS CONTENTS

T&B vs. Turn Coordinator 303

T&B vs. Turn Coordinator 305
T&B vs. Turn Coordinator 309
T&B Verses Turn Coordinator 370
T&B Verses Turn Coordinator 372
Turning Prop Backwards 1055
Single Verses Twin 167
Single vs. Twin 468
Single vs. Twin - Cessna Skymaster 470
G Model Twin 985
Twin Beech 1003
Twin Bonanza 1004
Twin Bonanza Stairs 1005
Twin Engine Beechcraft 1007
Twin Beech Society 1297
Two Speed Fuel Pump 620
IO-550 Conversion and Two Bladed Prop 730
IO-550 Conversion and Two Bladed Prop 731
IO-550 and Two Bladed Prop 732
Three vs. Two Blade Prop 739
Three vs. Two Blade Prop 741
Three vs. Two Blade Prop 742
Three vs. Two Blade Prop 743
DC-3 Two Man Crew 976
DC-3 Two Man Crew 977
Two Man Crew 1008
Two Man Crew - DC-3 1009
Two Man Crew - DC-3 1010
Oil Type 1049
Wastegate Types 807
Torque Wrenches Types 1200
Avionics Advice - Garmin Verses UPSAT 329
Unavailable STC’s 751
Standby Alternators - B&C Unit 390
Panel Mount Unit Comparison 927
Panel Mount Unit Features 929
Crosswing Landing - Fuel Unporting 31
Fuel Tank Unporting 1454
Fuel Unporting 1455
Unusable Fuel 1490
Emergency Landing: Gear Up or Down? 114
Gear Up Landing: Paved or Turf Runway? 125
Gear Up Landing: Paved or Turf Runway? 127
Gear Up Landing: Paved or Turf Runway? 128
Gear Up landing: Flaps Up or Down? 129
Gear Up landing: Flaps Up or Down? 129

cii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Starter Hang Up Warning Light 505

Gear Up Landing and FAA 1093
Weight and Balance Update 1255
Engine Upgrade and Gross Weight Increase 527
Upgrade Practacality 1202
Now They Are Shooting At Us ! 1290
Usable Fuel 621
Use of Flaps 97
Use of Flaps 98
Use of GPS as Backup 175
Use of Flaps 188
Use of Flaps 190
Use of Flaps 191
Use of Flaps 192
Use of Flaps/Short Field Takeoff 193
Use of Broker 1298
Use of Broker 1299
Use of Broker 1300
Use of the Engine to Slow Down 1414
Boost Pump Use 1444
Used Instruments 311
Visual Decent Point (VDP) Usefulness 49
Usefulness 804
Usefulness 805
Tip Tanks Utility 782
Tip Tanks Utility 784
Tip Tanks Utility 786
Tip Tanks Utility 787
Tip Tanks Utility 788
Tip Tanks Utility 789
Tip Tanks Utility 791
Tip Tanks Utility 793
IFR GPS Utility 865
IFR GPS Utility 897
IFR GPS Utility 957
Style Antennas Verses Flying ” V ” 222
Style Antennas Verses Flying ” V ” 223
A36 vs. V -Tail Bonanza 424
Differences Between S35’s and V 35’s 442
Straight Tail vs. V -Tail 472
V -tail AD’s 478
V -tail Safety 480
V 35A-TC 482
V -Tail AD 719
Bonanza Super V 968
Visual Decent Point ( VDP ) Usefulness 49

ciii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Is a VFR Bonanza Pilot Safe? 132

”Direct” with VFR GPS 856
”Direct” with VFR GPS 857
”Direct” with VFR GPS 858
Vaccum Pump Installation and 1259
Rapco Standy Vacuum System Desirability 384
Vacuum Pump - Wet vs. Dry 816
Wet Vacuum Pumps and Air/Oil 817
Vacuum Pump Replacement 1260
Wet vs. Dry Vacuum Pump 1261
Fluxgate Valve Mounting 341
Fuel Tank Selector Valve Location 610
Emergency Static Vent 1125
Verifying Instrument Operation 177
Verneer Control Tension Adjustment 1203
Vertical Guidance Data 941
Vertical Guidence Data 942
Engine Vibration 1039
Vibration 1204
Rosen Sun Visor ’s 707
Rosen Sun Visors 708
Visual Decent Point (VDP) 49
28 Volt Bonanza’s 488
WAAS 943
WAAS 944
WAAS and Accuracy 946
WWII pilot’s Total Time 1012
Stormscope WX 7A Verses Strikefinder 413
WX Avoidance Strategies 416
WX Avoidance Strategies 417
Walking on Water 1013
Desirability of Warning Flags 383
Starter Hang Up Warning Light 505
Wartime Training and Lindbergh 1018
Wastegate Types 807
Water in Static System and 178
Walking on Water 1013
Water Injection 1014
Water In Tank 1087
Water in Static System 1205
De-icing Airplanes The Easy Way 1513
Cold Weather Operation 667
Cold Weather Operation 668
Cold Weather Operation 1508
Cold Weather Operation 1510
Weighing Accuracy/Tip Tanks 1206

civ
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Re- Weighing 1246

Re- Weighing and Equipment List 1248
Re- Weighing and Equipment List 1250
Bonanza Weight 428
The Secret - Weight 477
Engine Upgrade and Gross Weight Increase 527
Gross Weight Increase 760
Gross Weight Increase 761
Gross Weight Increase 762
Gross Weight Increase 763
Gross Weight Increase 764
Gross Weight Increase 765
Gross Weight Increase 766
Gross Weight Increase - Category 767
Weight and CG 809
Power Setting/ Weight 1059
Nose Weight 1141
Weight and Balance Update 1255
Power Settings/ Weight 1437
Ruddervator Bob Weights 467
Vacuum Pump - Wet vs. Dry 816
Wet Vacuum Pumps and Air/Oil 817
Wet vs. Dry 818
Wet vs. Dry Vacuum Pump 1261
Tires and Wheel Sizes 651
Nose Wheel Tow Pins 694
Static Wicks and Ruddervator Balance 368
Strikefinder and Static Wicks 415
Static Wicks and Flap Position Decals 715
Tail Wiggle 82
Tail Wiggle 84
Tail Wiggle 87
Tail Wiggle 90
Tail Wiggle 91
Roger vs. Wilco 1292
Winching the Airplane 799
Wind Verses Engine Driven Standby 399
Rear Window - Opening In Flight 700
Rear Window Latch 1156
Speed Slope Windshield 714
Backup Wing Leveler 238
Backup Wing Leveler 239
Early Model Wing Design 449
Strobes - Wing Tip 507
Wing Strength 796
First Beech? High Wing Beech? 984

cv
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Fuel Sump Winged Fastener 1130

Removing the Wings 1158
Winter baffles 1416
Fine Wire Plugs 1041
Wisdom 1301
Towing With Gust Lock Installed 1525
Hand Wobble Pump - Switching Tanks 612
Wobble Pump Problem 1063
Wobble and Electric Boost Pumps 1064
One Main Landing Gear Won ’t Extend 148
Wood Flooring 1208
Working with the Shop 1209
Yaw Dampener Worthwhile ? 254
Torque Wrenches Types 1200
Adverse Yaw Induced By the Differential 180
Yaw Dampener Operation 252
Yaw Dampener Worthwhile? 254
Yaw Dampeners and Big Iron 255
Dual Yoke 202
Dual Yoke 672
Dual Yoke 673
Dual Yoke 675
Dual Yoke - Instruction 676
Dual Yoke - Instruction 678
Yoke Mount 850
Yoke Mount 851
Yoke Orientation 1211
Dual Yokes 679
Young Pilots 1302
Replacement Zerk Fittings 1161
Pulling up the assist step, was Annual from 1151
Towing backwards 1526
Winter baffles 1416
weight and balance 1214
Finding Traffic Hidden by the Sun 63
Placard REquired by AD 1245
Towing by the Tail 1527
Fuel cells 611
Sandel and GPS display 258
(Stormscope, Strikefinder, etc .) 403
(Stormscope, Strikefinder, etc .) 405
(Stormscope, Strikefinder, etc .) 408
(Stormscope, Strikefinder, etc .) 410
(Stormscope, Strikefinder, etc .) 412
(Stormscope, Strikefinder, etc .) 821
Squawk 1400 Above 10,000 feet ? 1001

cvi
CONTENTS CONTENTS

IO-470 vs. IO-550 - fuel flow 551

Required Equipment for IFR Flight 73
Desirability/GPS Replacement for DME 338
IO-550 or IO-520 for T-34? 566
IO-550 or IO-520 for T-34? 568
PS5C Pressure Carb - Leaning for Takeoff and Climb 593
Field Approvals - Instructions for Continued Airworthiness 750
RPM for Takeoff 1406
up the assist step, was Annual from heaven. 1151
IO-470 vs. IO-550 - fuel flow 551
assist step, was Annual from heaven . 1151
Prop De- ice /Anti-ice 734
Prop De-ice/Anti- ice 734
De- icing Airplanes The Easy Way 1513
Gear Up landing : Flaps Up or Down? 129
Cooling After Shutdown (was leaning ) 1361
Gust lock 690
Gust locks 692
Electronic Tach/ mechanical 276
Right Flap needs reskinned? 1071
E-55 TE-1152 (oddball serial number ) 425
Baron E-55 TE-1152 ( oddball serial number) 425
Bonanza on Floats 664
Walking on Water 1013
Approach ROM - Prop Speed on Approach 1340
Tip Tanks - Effect on Speed? 1535
Prop - Which one ? 597
performance Numbers 1528
WWII pilot ’s Total Time 1012
Fuel Flow with Low power and Full Flaps 1450
Right Flap needs reskinned ? 1071
Air Skeg/ restoring the S-35 1111
Touch & Go’ s 93
Touch and Go’ s 95
Touch and Go’ s 96
Endurance and Evaluating One’ s Limits 116
Turn Coordinator and T&B’ s 120
Differences Between S35’ s and V35’s 442
Between S35’s and V35’ s 442
Early Bonanza’ s 444
Early Bonanza’ s 446
O-470/IO-470 Powered Bonanza’ s 460
Older Bonanza’ s and Bendix PS5C Carb 461
V-tail AD’ s 478
28 Volt Bonanza’ s 488
Rosen Sun Visor’ s 707

cvii
CONTENTS CONTENTS

Unavailable STC’ s 751

WWII pilot’ s Total Time 1012
Airworthiness and IA’ s 1230
STC’ s and Field Approvals 1254
Baron E-55 TE-1152 (oddball serial number) 425
Fixed step 686
Drag testing, was Assist step 1122
Pulling up the assist step , was Annual from heaven. 1151
One Main Landing Gear Won’ t Extend 148
V- tail AD’s 478
V- tail Safety 480
Drag testing , was Assist step 1122
5 th or 6th Seat 421
5th or 6 th Seat 421
5 th and 6th Seats 653
5th and 6 th Seats 653
Logging time - Tach or Hobbs? 1285
Approaches under a MOA 1317
Cowl Flaps Hanging up 1120
Pulling up the assist step, was Annual 1151
weight and balance 1214

cviii
Chapter 1

AIRMAN

1.1 AIRMAN-APPROACH

1
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Go Around Configuration
Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:19:20

In a message dated 8/31/99 8:08:36 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Could it be that, with some flaps extended, the center of lift translates
rearward, giving you the same pitch stability effect as moving the center
of gravity forward? I certainly notice this increase in stability when us-
ing ”approach flaps” for an instrument approach. Maybe it ”feels better”
because it’s a little more stable in pitch that way.

Good Morning Tom,

Could be! I also think it gives me a little nicer view over the nose at lift off.
I generally use flaps on an approach for the same reason. Makes it a little easier to
spot the required visual references in time to complete the approach and landing. This
is especially true for those approaches where the lowest minima are only available to
category ”A” aircraft. When my heavy old clunker is below ninety knots, the nose is
quite high without flap and since most of those approaches are nonprecision, the extra
visibility really helps.
While I am on the approach flap subject, I have noted several references recently to the
advantage of using NO flap on the approach to make it easier to go-around. I wonder if
the folks who advocate that procedure have considered the following.
If the aircraft is stabilized on the usual three degree glide path (or stabilized anywhere
else for that matter) at or above the flaps up best rate of climb speed for the existing
weight, the flaps may be fully retracted from any position, including full flap, with no loss
in altitude or increase in the sink rate. In fact, if the aircraft is in that desired stabilized
approach condition and nothing is done except to retract the flaps and maintain the
existing airspeed by judicious rotation of pitch, the aircraft will likely level off and may
even climb a bit.
Following that line of reasoning a little further, the ”best” flap to use on an approach
would be the most flap that could be carried with the power available. It makes the go-
around that much easier because the power is already up and the engine temperatures
are stabilized in a good operating range.
In the days of yore, most ”heavy” piston operators utilized an approach flap until the
runway was in sight and a landing was assured. This philosophy changed with the early
jets as they had horrendously slow spool up times. If the power was well back and a go
around initiated, things could get a little exciting!
On the Sud Est Caravelle, there was a fourteen-second spool up time from throttles
closed to full rated power. More than half of the available thrust came in the last
three or four seconds. Consequently, full flaps and speed brakes were deployed to add
drag and permit the engines to be close to climb power on the approach. If a missed

2
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

approach became necessary, all that was required was a slight increase in power up to
T/O thrust, speed brakes to retract, flaps to departure flap and a positive rotation to
hold the approach speed which had been chosen to be (among other considerations)
above the best rate of climb speed of the departure flap. Once a positive rate of climb
was established, the gear was retracted. Worked like a charm!
After we saw the light, the same procedures were applied to the piston fleet. That was
the beginning of the philosophy of the ”stabilized” approach which is now considered
the only way to go by all air carrier operators.
If I am flying my Bonanza near gross weight into Denver with a load of ice, the power
available would not likely be enough to allow full flap and still have latitude to make
power adjustments. If I were heading into New Orleans at the end of a long solo flight,
I could probably carry full flap with twenty inches or so. Therefore, the amount of flap
I carry on an approach ”depends”!
Any comments?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990831 101920 msg07672.tex]

3
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Approach Engine RPM

Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:09:59

In a message dated 2/8/01 1:50:50 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

As part of your SOP, do you land with the prop set at a relatively low
RPM setting or do you feed in the prop control on short final when out of
prop governing range? If you land with the lower RPM setting, what RPM
do you typically use in the pattern?
Thanks......wpl

Good Afternoon Patrick,

I normally land with whatever RPM I have set for the final portion of the flight.
I do not make it a practice to shove the prop governor control to the high RPM position
on short final. I prefer to wait until I have need for a higher RPM before running the
prop lever forward.
The RPM I use in the pattern is dependent on the weight, elevation and other power
requirements, but it is generally between 2000 and 2100.
In the event a go around is required, I richen the mixture slightly, (not necessarily to full
rich) add manifold pressure to around 24 or 25 inches, then bring up the RPM and the
rest of the MP together followed by adjusting the mixture, as appropriate, and opening
the cowl flaps. I find this quite comfortable to do in the Bonanza, but not all pilots find
it practical. For those folks I suggest adding the MP up to 24, then the RPM to redline
followed by full throttle.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010208 150959 msg03164.tex]

4
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

Approach Engine RPM

Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:54:25

In a message dated 2/8/01 2:39:03 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

I thought it [high RPM, low MP] was a good thing, in the sense that a
vacuum is created in the cylinder which sucks in oil (you know the blue
cloud on the old cars) and it helped lube rings & valve stems.

Good Afternoon Mike,

Yeh, that was the method that Harley Davidson recommended to get oil up into the
cylinders on the 1936 flat head I owned once upon a time.
Somehow, it doesn’t seem to be a good idea on all aircooled engines. On the R3350
we were constantly busting the ring lands until a procedure was instigated to keep the
engine pulling. As Paul mentioned, almost everybody recommends the same thing for
all of the geared engines. I have also been told there are issues with the reversal of forces
on the pistons at relatively high rpms.
It may be an Old Wives Tale, but I was taught it by the same folks who taught me that
ten percent on the lean side of best power was an excellent way to operate the engine and
they have been proven correct. I have seen no evidence that the low manifold pressure,
high RPM, with the prop driving the engine is a ’good thing’ and a lot of evidence that
it can be a ’bad thing.’
I don’t have any idea what all the details are, but there is enough anecdotal evidence
around that I just don’t want to do it.
I tend to stick with that which I was taught until I find evidence that I was taught
wrong.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010208 155425 msg03172.tex]

5
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Approach Speed and Approach Category

Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:43:23

In a message dated 1/27/00 9:48:41 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

In my J35, I flew precision approaches at 18” MP and 2200 RPM. This is

about 45% power and yielded 120 KTS indicated in level flight.

Good Morning Alan,

What works for you is the right thing to use, just remember though, that higher speed
means higher minima. If you approach at 120 knots, you are at the upper limit for
approach category B aircraft. Any speed above 120 and you would be required to use
Category C minima. There isn’t a whole lot of difference between A and B minima
most places, but when you get up to Cat C, the minima often raises dramatically. There
are many airports which aren’t authorized for anything other than Category A and B
aircraft and a few that are restricted to Category A. If you fly the higher speeds, you
are required to use the higher minima.
I occasionally use 150 to 160 knots on an ILS at a very busy field, especially if the weather
is reported a couple of hundred feet above minima, but only if the field is approved for
approach Category D! It is kinda fun to be told to slow down because you are overtaking
a 747!
My airplane has a 154 knot gear extension speed, so those higher speeds aren’t bad.
Our friends who are flying straight 35s have a gear and flap extension limit speed of 87
knots. Quite a different animal to manage!
All of the Bonanza series of aircraft are capable of maneuvering safely at or below 90
knots. If the operator desires to use the lower category A minima, all of the Bonanzas
are capable of doing so safely.
As always, it depends!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000127 124323 msg01852.tex]

6
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

Go Aroung Configuration
Mon, 13 Jul 1998 23:32:05

Good Evening Bob Newman,

In a message dated 98-07-13 22:42:38 EDT, you write:

My BPPP instructor taught me to use +9 to +12 degrees trim for landing,

and to deploy full flaps only when the landing was assured.

This is in no way critical of what your instructor taught you. I obviously don’t know
what point he was trying to bring across when that procedure was suggested to you.
I would, however, comment that I would be hesitant to list any certain degree of trim
as a standard. I would rather that one would choose a speed to which one wanted to
trim and then cease trimming thereafter.
One choice (but certainly not the only one) might be the desired balked landing climb
speed for the configuration the aircraft was in. As an example, if the chosen speed were
80 knots, one would quit trimming at 80 knots and slow up further by increasing the
back pressure to increase the angle of attack.
Different loadings would give different degrees of trim, trimming to a speed chosen for
the particular weight and configuration would be much more consistent.
I am a devotee of full flap landings in the Bonanza at almost all times. The most flap
that any have is 30 degrees and that is so little that a go-around at any but the heaviest
weights or very high density altitudes is little or no problem. I really don’t think holding
the flap unitil a landing is assured is a good idea. That entails a configuration change at
a most inopportune time in the approach. Why make it hard on yourself. I find it most
comfortable to take all of the flap at once. When I need them at all, I generally put
them all of the way down. There are always exceptions, but it rarely seems pertinent to
do otherwise. Many years ago it was common to hold the flap until landing was assured
but I don’t think you will find any major operator who recommends it today. My old
company asked us to cease using that procedure in the middle fifties.
If a partial flap landing is chosen for whatever reason, I would recommend landing with
the flap you have chosen. It makes for a much more stabilized approach.
One thing to remember about flaps, they can be raised any time that you have a speed
above the best angle of climb speed for the configuration you are going to and the current
weight of the aircraft.
That is, if you determine that 81 knots is the proper best angle of climb speed for the
current weight of your aircraft with the flaps fully retracted, you can retract the flaps to
zero any time you have at least 81 knots and there will be no loss in altitude provided
the aircraft is rotated to compensate for the flap retraction.
As someone said earlier, there are at least as many proper ways to fly an airplane as

7
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

there are pilots who fly them but I would urge you to consider the above when choosing
your technique.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980713 233205 msg03680.tex]

8
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

Selection Partial Flaps

Wed, 20 Jan 1999 11:20:15

Good Morning Mark Jennings,

In a message dated 1/19/99 11:58:11 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

Another instructor I had used the ”counting” technique to set partial flaps
and avoid having to look at the indicator. I recall it as 4-seconds for 0-20
degrees and 2-seconds for 20-30 degrees, then full. But I’m a one-step pilot
now.

”Counting” is OK, but the number of seconds for various extensions will vary consider-
able between different models. The flap extension times for the very early airplanes are
much greater than the later ones. There was also a change on the later airplanes when
the twenty-eight volt electrical system was added.
If one likes to make a partial extension, why not just put them out until the effect is
what you like. I have always done it by the feel of the airplane and find that I can teach
that to students in a very short time. When you have time, you can check to see just
how many degrees of flap have extended and adjust your approach speed accordingly if
desired.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990120 112015 msg00857.tex]

9
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

High Drag Approaches

Tue, 7 Sep 1999 14:29:15

In a message dated 9/6/99 3:44:12 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

We may end up agreeing to disagree on high drag approaches. They were

an excellent solution to some very real problems with the jets, but they
are NOT a ”good thing” with props! In fact, with many, if not all prop
airplanes, the high-drag, ”stabilized” approach is quite unsafe. One of the
problems I have is breaking high-time airline pilots of this habit in the big
recips. Real easy to do, I’ll just fail an engine on the four-mile ILS final,
on glideslope. Unless they are very, very quick, and very, very good, they
can’t make the runway. There’s a reason we did it that way, back before
jets.

Good Afternoon John,

This is not a subject that can be covered in a short time but I will try to hit the high
points.
The use of full flap on one of the old piston airplanes is just the same as the use of full
flap on a new jet powered aircraft.
It is not a function of what powers the aircraft, but of the power available and the speed
to be flown.
On the carrier for whom I flew, we had a problem with throttle plate icing on the DC-7
which caused some serious situations. It was found that there were fewer problems if
higher power could be carried on the approach.
Now how can you increase the amount of power and still hold the glide path?
One way is to increase the drag. How does one do that? One way is to put out some
more flap, but with the proviso that the speed is maintained at the speed that would
have been flown with the lesser flap setting. That way, should an engine be lost at four
miles out on an ILS, the drill would be to retract the flap to the amount of flap that
could be carried with the reduced power available. As long as the aircraft is at or above
the appropriate speed for the flap setting to which the flap is being retracted, there is no
problem maintaining the glidepath. The extra flaps were just drag. Now if one decides
to slow down to the best L/D for the greater flap extension, altitude would have to be
sacrificed or an awful lot of power be available to prevent a loss of altitude.
I don’t remember all of the power settings we used and I never flew any model of the
Connies. I did fly the DC-6 and DC-7 for some thirteen years, the last six as captain
and the last five during the introduction of jet transports to the industry. It was during
that time that our company began to develop procedures that recommended full flap
stabilized approaches for the DC-6 and DC-7 fleet.

10
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

There was a lot of grumbling at first and since our company didn’t insist that we fly the
airplane in any manner we didn’t care for, the full flap stabilized approach took quite a
while to be accepted.
It was only to be used at those times when there was sufficient power available such
that the glide path could be held on a full flap approach with a power that was (per
my memory) somewhere close to cruise power. If more power than that was required, a
lesser flap would be selected. In addition. the speed held was always that speed which
would have been held with the lesser flap setting. Company policy was changed and it
was recommended that whatever flap was used for the approach would be the flap the
was landed with. This took some runway analysis by our engineering department and
all of the squares were filled as required.
I became convinced of the efficacy of the full flap approach after a friend of mine was
flying a DC-7 freighter into Cleveland one dark and stormy night when he had a bit of
a problem.
He was using the old method of approach flap and when he got to two hundred feet
there was nothing in sight. He attempted to add power so as to get out of town and
they were frozen solid. He pushed and then pulled and then pushed again followed by a
REAL hard yank back and that is when they broke loose. He was by then a little under
one hundred feet and the runway was in sight so he went ahead and landed. It was an
icy runway and a he had little too much speed, but with lot’s of reverse and a little luck,
he got it stopped.
The company answer was to once again suggest that we consider using a higher power on
the approach as there was less chance of the throttles freezing at higher powers and they
also suggested that we make constant adjustments to the throttle during the approach
so as to minimize freezing.
I was flying the same trip a couple of nights later. It was a clear night so I decided to
try the company recommended full flap procedure plus a little thought of my own. I
advised the tower that we would be executing a go around from the two hundred foot
point.
The aircraft was set up with full flap, power was set accordingly and the speed rec-
ommended by the company was held. I am not sure, but I believe that recommended
approach speed was the same as the recommended missed approach speed.
Then, when the aircraft was at minima, I simulated frozen throttles by not touching
them at all. Running the props up to full T/O RPM gave us close to METO power on
all four with the throttles set just as they had been for the approach. My recollection is
that the manifold pressure increased from somewhere in the 30 to 32 inch range up to
around 45 to 48 inches with just the increase in RPM. Flaps were retracted to the go
around flap setting and the gear was retracted after positive rate, just like the big boys
in the jets!
It worked like a charm and I became a believer in the company recommended procedure.
The key is to maintain a speed appropriate to the flap to be used for the missed approach

11
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

and to take no more flap than can be carried with a reasonable amount of power. I don’t
remember precisely what the company set as a limit, but I think it was somewhere around
cruise power. That is the number that I now use when deciding how much flap to use
on a low approach. I imagine it is a carryover from those days of yore!
I doubt if the procedure would have been practical on the DC-4, but it worked great on
the 6s and 7s except at the high elevation airports.
Just a quickie view of the procedure and I am sure I have skimmed over many of the
fine points, but I think it does point up that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990907 142915 msg08036.tex]

12
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

Go Around Configuration
Wed, 20 Jan 1999 01:09:11

Good Evening Bob Newman,

In a message dated 1/19/99 10:02:32 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

Lew has more experience than I can ever hope to have, but I don’t agree
with this technique of one step flaps deployment in the Bonanza. A go-
around from the full flaps configuration is not the safest maneuver in the
Bonanza, and a lot of other airplanes for that matter.

I stand on the side of the airplane being flown in what ever manner the pilot feels is the
best for his operation.
Having said that, I must say that I agree with Lew and that my normal procedure is to
take full flap whenever I take any flap. But if you prefer the flaps in increments, why
not do it.
My comment will be about your last statement that a go around from a full flap config-
uration is less than safe. That is just not true.
The key to a safe go around is to operate at a speed that is pertinent for the flap
configuration in which the pilot intends to fly the missed approach.
At any individual combination of glide path and speed, a greater amount of flap will
require a greater amount of power to be carried.
Instead of waiting until the landing is assured before adding full flaps, why not take those
flaps early, but maintain the speed that you would have maintained with the lesser flap
setting. That means that you would be using the flaps as a drag device which allows
carrying a higher power and allowing the stability that is thereby inherent to be used
for the approach.
A decent speed, but not the only speed, to use would be the appropriate maximum rate
of climb speed for the clean configuration at the weight that exists. Once the landing
is assured, the speed can be reduced to the minimum for the conditions to effect the
landing as efficiently as possible. On a twin I would suggest holding the best single
engine climb speed with landing flaps until the point at which the landing is assured
and then reducing to a speed appropriate to the flap to be used for landing.
The stabilized approach adds a lot of precision to the procedure and removes one con-
figuration change and re-trimming that would otherwise be required.
If a missed approach is desired, all one must do is add the rest of the available power
and rotate to hold the airspeed while retracting the flaps. If the airplane is capable
of climbing with the power available, it will climb. The advantage of this procedure is
that the power is already up and the engine is developing considerable thrust, possibly

13
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

enough so that a climb might be possible by taking no action other than raising the
flaps and rotating the aircraft. When a positive rate of climb is achieved, raise the gear
and away we go!
The procedure of waiting till the landing was assured before going to full flaps was the
one that was used by many airlines prior to the jet age. The early jets had such a slow
spool up time that it was necessary to operate them in as high a drag configuration as
possible in order to have the engines spooled up adequately for a go around.
After the procedure was adopted for the jets, it was experimented with on the pistons as
well and I believe every major carrier recommended using the same philosophy for their
piston fleets as well as the turbine fleet. I don’t know of anyone on my old airline that
continued with the old procedure after trying the full flap stabilized approach concept.
The key is establishing a configuration that will allow a stable approach in the condi-
tions that prevail and flying an approach airspeed appropriate for the missed approach
configuration.
The Bonanza series has relatively little flap available. The most on any model is thirty
degrees. Unless you have a load of ice, are at a very high density altitude or in some
other dire circumstance, full flaps can be comfortably carried on any normal glide path
while maintaining the speed appropriate for the missed approach.
I started using the full flap stabilized approach on my Bonanza and most other light
aircraft shortly after it was adopted by my employer for the piston fleet and have never
seen a reason to return to the old procedure.
Even Ancient Aviators do sometimes adopt more modern techniques!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Very Old Guy
[ARTICLES/19990120 010911 msg00847.tex]

14
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

Circling Approaches
Sun, 1 Apr 2001 18:41:21

In a message dated 4/1/01 1:51:37 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Well, someone with Jepp charts for that airport needs to check to see if the
approach was not authorized or not and report back. Anyone??? I don’t
have charts for that area. Larry

Good Afternoon Larry,

There seems to be considerable confusion concerning the fact that this approach is only
authorized as a ”circling approach,” by the media, and some other folks as well.
There are many approaches that are restricted to that type approach for reasons other
than runway alignment.
Any runway that does not meet the ”straight in” IFR criteria will be restricted to circling
minima. It could be as simple as the runway not having adequate IFR markings. That
occasionally happens to some of the low use airports that can’t afford to paint the
runway. I don’t suggest that is the reason here, but just to point out that there are
many reasons for the circling criteria.
A more likely reason would be that the approach requires a descent rate of more than
400 feet per mile. I haven’t run the calculations, but that is a possibility.
Another common reason for a restriction is that some obstacle penetrates the approach
path inside the criteria set for the straight in criteria. A radio tower located a hundred
feet to the side of the runway threshold would not be likely to cause any trouble to a
normal visual landing, but it could cause the runway to fail to be qualified for a straight
in.
Another very likely possibility is that a successful missed approach, meeting the TERPS
missed approach criteria, cannot be conducted from any point beyond the MAP.
Lot’s of possibilities!
There is no requirement that the aircraft NOT land straight in if the pilot chooses to
do so and the if operation is within the ”normal” capabilities of his aircraft.
There is also no blanket restriction concerning circling at night, in fact most circling
approaches ARE approved for night operations.
In some cases, the flight check folks will decide that the obstruction lighting in the
circling area is not adequate and circling will be restricted to one side or the other of
the runway or not approved at all.
The Jeppesen plate for Aspen shows no restrictions on circling at night at Aspen.

15
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

I don’t have any knowledge as to what the inspection team found which precipitated
the Notam that disallowed night operations, but that restriction is generally a result of
the obstruction lighting not being up to the standards that were originally approved. It
could be something as simple as trees or bushes that have grown up in front of the lights
and obscured their view from the approach path.
It is highly unlikely that any of the actions or lack of actions in relation to the Notamed
conditions had anything to do with this accident. Had the aircraft executed the missed
approach at the missed approach point, there would have been no accident and no
problem. Did he see adequate visual clues to proceed beyond the MAP? Were those
visual cues somehow obscured during the visual segment of the approach? Did the pilot
take appropriate action based on the conditions encountered?
Those are the questions that must be answered. All of this attention to the approach
being Notamed out is just obscuring the real problem. If the approach was properly
conducted, regulatory conditions complied with and no equipment failure, there should
have been no problem, Notam or no Notam.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010401 184121 msg07051.tex]

16
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

Backup GS Desirability
Thu, 28 Dec 2000 18:55:51

In a message dated 12/28/00 5:13:36 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

The notion is simply that some redundancy is present. Are there some
data on this issue ... or are we dealing strictly with preferences?

Good Evening John,

Good question. I really don’t know of any good reason why I like the dual GS.
I did have one glide slope failure during an approach that was right down at minima.
There was no flag, the glide path needle just seemed to be floating up and down when
I didn’t think it should. I executed a miss and went out to try another approach.
After reviewing the rate of descent that should be required to hold the glide path for
the ground speed I anticipated, I tried it again. The needle was unstable and directed
more action than I thought was proper. Another miss and I went to my alternate. After
landing, I called my radio shop to make an appointment for repair and told them to
order whatever was needed to add a second glide slope to my panel.
As long as both needles agree, I feel fairly confident that the slope is correct, but if one
should disagree with the other, I suppose that I would once again execute that missed
approach. In reality, the check that allowed me to catch the first failure is probably
more than adequate and the dual GS is just overkill.
I have no hesitancy to fly with just one radio. That includes flying an ILS with one
glide slope. But if the rates of descent or other check points don’t add up, the miss is
the way to go for me!
We could add redundancy and back up to the point that the airplane would no longer
be capable of flight.
Experience has shown that reasonable safety is available with very little equipment
onboard. The secret is to know how to use what you do have and have some idea of how
things should be going so that if the timing of events doesn’t seem reasonable, action
will be taken before a dangerous condition develops.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001228 185551 msg18521.tex]

17
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Changing Tanks and Pre Landing Checklist

Fri, 5 Feb 1999 05:46:10

Good Morning John and All,

In a message dated 2/4/99 11:07:00 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

I still prefer to make my last tank change before starting the descent. This
completes it before the high-workload time of descent and landing, partic-
ularly IFR. When the ”G” comes up in the checklist, all that’s required is
a mental recollection of doing it or confirmation that it has been done. No
chance of interrupting flow at a critical time. John Mills.

I guess we have about beat this one to death but I think it might be helpful to remember
that just because Beech has placed the admonition: ”Select cell more nearly full” as a
”BEFORE LANDING” item of the ”OPERATING CHECK LIST” it doesn’t mean any
action is required approaching the airport, on downwind, ten miles out, two miles out,
or on final.
Where the physical manipulation of the controls is performed is not as important as the
sequencing of events in a manner and at a time which will provide for the action to take
place with reasonable certainty regardless of the variables that occur in the approach
and arrival at the landing site.
With a single pilot operation, it becomes ever more important that we establish habits
that will, hopefully, catch the things that bite!
”OPERATING CHECK LISTS” as listed by Beech, might well be divided into ”Plan
To Do Lists”, ”Do Lists”, ”Check Lists” and ”Think About Whether It’s Been Done
Lists”.
That’s why most of us have established some variation of the GUMP or GUMPS or
GUMPF as a last ditch check to be performed religiously to catch those ”gotcha” items
at least once somewhere in the final stages of the arrival procedure.
With a little planning, keeping our own comfort in establishing operating parameters
in mind, we should be able to establish a habit pattern that will enable us to get all of
the required steps completed in a timely manner without rushing our thought process
at any point in the flight.
I think you John, have established that procedure in a manner that works for you and
that is what is important.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990205 054610 msg01959.tex]

18
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

Circling Approachs
Sun, 27 Aug 2000 12:00:21

In a message dated 8/27/00 9:41:56 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Now, the Bo is a very nice aircraft for doing circling approaches and I
have no qualms about doing them in any weather. But circling approaches
have a well deserved reputation as being hazardous for whatever reason. I
have a M3 GPS and the straight in approaches are very nice and are safer.
Especially in rough turbulence, with rain pouring across the windshield
at night with marginal runway lighting - going straight in makes all the
difference in the world.

Good Morning Mike,

Thank you for the kind words and support! But, I would like to present some support
for the circling approach.
I agree that straight in approaches to relatively low minima are much easier than circling
approaches. However, I would rather not say that circling approaches are less safe.
Circling approaches are a different phase of flight that has had very little emphasis in
these days when very few airlines ever use them. Why did the airlines quite doing
circling approaches? Not because they were inherently less safe, but because it saved
them money!
In the days of the DC-3 and into the early operations of the heavier pistons, we were still
doing a lot of circling and it was relatively easy to maintain proficiency. As airline travel
became more important to the economy, money was spent to provide more runways and
to clear obstacles so that we could land with lower weather minima. By the time the
Jets came on the scene, the airlines had straight in approaches to almost every runway
they used and there few enough obstacles that the minima was, and is, relatively low
everywhere they go.
The consequence was that proficiency in circling endeavors decreased. That meant that
more time had to be spent in the twice annual proficiency training and checks to bring
everyone up to proficiency in a technique that really wasn’t used often enough to justify
the expense of the training and checking required. Circling minima for a 747 generally
runs around 800 and 2 & 1/2. That is so close to VFR that it just isn’t worth spending
any money to provide the capability.
Now let’s get back to how you and I use our flying machines. If we are shooting an
approach to an airport where the nonprecision approach allows a straight in MDA of
350 feet AG and the circling MDA is 370, I think all of us would prefer the straight in
and wouldn’t want to go for the circling unless we had a LOT of very recent experience
and practice executing low altitude maneuvers at low speed.

19
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

However, let’s now assume that the approach we are executing has a minima of 800 and
one for both the circling and straight in minima. The wind is calm, the runway is three
thousand feet long, has medium intensity runway lights, but no approach or conspicuity
lighting of any sort. Unbelievably, the ceiling is right at 800 feet and the visibility not
a bit over one statute mile!
Even though we have the airplane slowed down below ninety knots, stabilized at the
MDA and are dragging full flaps, it is hard to see the runway over the nose one mile
from the threshold at 800 feet!
So we spot the runway before the missed approach point, but are way too high for a
straight in to that 3000 foot strip. Why not slide over one quarter to a half mile to the
right of the runway and just set up a nice gentle circling approach to the other end?
We know that the 800 feet will clear all obstacles in the circling area by 300 feet and
since the visibility is one mile, we should be able to see any obstacles that are in the way
during the visual descent to the runway. Any obstacle that penetrates the 20 to 1 slope
required for a visual runway is required to have a red light on top so even if we are not
real familiar with the field we should be able to set up an approach where the descent is
started somewhere along the downwind and a comfortable approach made without ever
going outside the allowed one mile from the field, yet still maintain height at or above
the required 20 to 1 slope on the approach.
Most folks are like the airlines, they have little or no need for the circling maneuver, but
it is a neat technique to have in your little bag of tricks for those boonie airports that
have those high MDA approaches. If you have local knowledge of the obstacles in the
area, it makes it a little more comfortable when setting up the descent to the runway,
but it can still be plenty safe if you are aware of the obstacle clearance and marking
requirements for a VFR runway.
My home airport has a circling approach with a MDA of 651 feet AG, visibility required
is one mile. Even if the approach was lined up with the runway, it would still be a circling
approach since the runway only qualifies as a Visual runway, not an Instrument runway.
The visual twenty to one slope requires displaced thresholds at each end and there is
2339 feet between those thresholds. Unless the visibility is well above the minima, it
is rare that we could spot the runway in time to maneuver for a straight in approach.
Almost every IFR approach requires the full around the field circling maneuver.
If some new regs are developed that would allow descent to 350 or 400 feet for a straight
in approach, that would certainly be more desirable than the circle, but once the MDA
gets up around 600 to 800 feet, there are some advantages to the circling approach.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000827 120021 msg12647.tex]

20
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

Circling Approaches
Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:43:38

In a message dated 2/18/00 6:08:32 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

The point I was making is that without visual cue, there is nothing in the
regs. that allow you to go below the MDA, or execute any maneuver (cir-
cling) past the MAP other than shoot the published miss. Simply knowing
the surrounding terrain is not approved justification

Good Morning Dana,

I agree with your feelings completely! I was merely pointing out that the language is
much more specific than it was many years ago. The approach and the miss are intended
to be flown as published and the maneuvering following the sighting of the appropriate
visual cues has very definite and precise limitations.
There is nothing wrong or unsafe about a circling approach.
But the limitations concerning altitude, flight path and visual requirements are to be
observed with at least the same precision as are the localizer and glide slope while
executing an ILS.
Should conditions require a missed approach during the circling maneuver, any required
turns are to be made inside the charted circling area while the aircraft is being established
on the missed approach segment.
As an example, let’s suppose that you are circling to land on the far end of the runway
with which the approach is aligned. You start the descent while on the downwind leg
(remember though, there may be an obstacle within three hundred feet of the circling
altitude!) and are on base well below the circling altitude when the runway end is
suddenly no longer in view.
The appropriate action is to continue your turn toward the runway while initiating a
climb to the missed approach altitude. When you consider that you are nearing the
approach end of the runway, a turn should be made, if one is required, to intercept the
departure path and the climb continued until the missed approach altitude is reached.
All of this maneuvering to establish flight on the missed approach flight path should be
done at or below the speed appropriate to the approach category being used.
One of the reasons that I constantly counsel folks to observe the limitations on ap-
proach speeds is due to the differences in clear areas provided for the various approach
classifications.
If an aviator is going to operate to the limits of a category A aircraft, the indicated
airspeed must be maintained at 90 knots or less.
If a bonanza is flown on the approach and during the circling maneuver at speeds between

21
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

that and 120 knots, it is a category B aircraft and those are the minima which must be
observed.
Too many operators figure they can do anything they want once they are beneath the
cloud. Collisions with towers are often the result. Such obstacles can be very hard to
spot even if you know where they are!
In order to gain approval of a circling approach for a category A aircraft, the area
checked for obstacles is one and three-tenths statute miles in radius from the thresholds
of the approved runways with the developed circles joined by straight tangential lines.
The circling altitude must be three hundred feet above an obstacle within that area.
The area checked for a category B aircraft uses a one and one half mile radius.
Fly outside that area and there could be a tower or other obstacle far above the circling
altitude.
There are no restrictions on what obstacles might be in the space outside of that circling
area.
You will note that there are a number of airports where circling is not permitted to one
side or the other of a specified runway. That means that there is an obstacle which could
not be cleared by three hundred feet during flight at the specified circling altitude. It
could be solid rock or it could be a radio tower!
Thank you for the opportunity to expand on the discussion and I am glad that we are
in agreement on the requirements for descent!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000218 104338 msg03100.tex]

22
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

Crosswind Landings
Thu, 21 Jan 1999 21:57:32

Good Evening Jerry Frank,

In a message dated 1/21/99 1:17:44 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

No such remark is in my Bonanza manual. How come? And is it OK. I

learned to side slip on final for a crosswind landing (wing low into the wind
hold runway heading). But now I use the crab method on final.

I know of no restriction on slipping the Bonanza with flaps extended. I like it and have
used the slip whenever I thought it was appropriate. I prefer the wing low method
of cross wind correction though I don’t generally transition from the crab to the wing
low until I am below twenty to thirty feet. The most important thing in any cross
wind situation is not the type of correction used, but to make sure that the airframe is
tracking down the runway and not setting up a drift to the side.
It is always better to land a little sideways than to allow a set or drift to the side of the
runway to develop.
If the aircraft is tracking properly and you accidentally hit a little crooked, it is fairly
easy to straighten it out, but if the aircraft has started drifting down wind, it will be
hard to maintain control regardless of how nice the nose is pointing down the runway!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990121 215732 msg00961.tex]

23
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Crosswind Landings
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 11:03:36

In a message dated 1/22/99 6:47:24 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I’ve been reading all this banter about using flaps and gear during an ap-
proach and I haven’t seen anything on cross controlling during a crosswind
landing.

—-
what is the story about cross controlling?
Good Morning John,
I suppose it would be best to determine first on an agreed definition of what ”cross
controlling” really means.
In my mind, a strict definition would be that the controls are ”crossed” any time that
the aileron is displaced and the rudder is neutral or in the opposite direction. The
same would hold true for the rudder. If it were displaced toward either direction with
the aileron in neutral or displaced in the opposite direction that would technically be
”crossed controls.”
If we are climbing out at low speed in our beautiful high powered Bonanzas with the
normal for the USA built airplanes right hand rotation propellor, we will likely be holding
considerable right rudder (notwithstanding the crooked engine versions) even though the
aileron might be neutral, or at least close to it, to hold that little ball in the middle.
There are many other modes of flight where it is required that we have some displacement
of the aileron and/or rudder in a direction opposite to each other in order to maintain
that ”ball centered” flight.
While I was taught to call that condition coordinated flight, I like to call it ”balanced
flight” even though the controls are technically crossed. Coordination to me always
meant that the rudder and aileron should be either in neutral or displaced in the same
direction and we all know that those conditions are rarely obtained in normal flight.
What then would be ”crossed control” flight? I don’t really know, but I generally think
of it in the very narrow sense of that time at which we are either slipping or skidding,
intentionally or otherwise, and therefore not in ”balanced flight.”
The recent posts concerning crosswind landings have debated the merits of ”wing down”
crosswind correction as opposed to the ”crab and kick it out” method.
I feel that I am a devotee of the wing down method but I don’t establish the slip until
fairly late in the landing and I suppose there is an element of the ”kick it out” method
in my transition from balanced flight to the wingdown crosswind correction.

24
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

Tom Turner earlier today posted the following:

Persons with airline experience tend to favor the crab method, because
that’s standard procedure in the big jets. Bob S. and others, please cor-
rect me if I’m wrong, but airline procedure went from slideslip (wing low)
method as standard to the crab method with the introduction of the 707
and DC-8, because in those airplanes there was a danger of dragging the
outboard engine nacelle in a wing-low landing.
When I was a beginning flight instructor at the University of Illinois, most of the other
instructors were gentlemen who had just returned from making the world safe for the
rest of us and the debate about which was better, kick it out or stick the wing down
was a constant subject of debate in all of our bull sessions.
If there was such a thing as a consensus, it was among the returnees from the Army or
the Navy. The Army trained pilots tended to like the wing down and the Navy pilots
seemed more enamored of the kick it out!
When I started my airline career as a DC-3 copilot, the same division was alive and
well. Even among the fellows that had flown the open cockpit mail planes, there was no
unanimity of opinion.
Since I ended up as one of those in the wing down camp, I suppose my view is tainted,
but I thought that the wingdowners were the majority.
When I flew with those Captains who expounded and utilized the ”kick it out” it always
seemed to me that if they didn’t touch down during the kickout, the maneuver rapidly
changed into a wing down one and both the wing down pilots and the kick it out pilots
either ended up with ”crossed controls” or we started drifting sideways across the runway
which required all of that skill and daring possessed by those stalwart airline aviators
to save the day!
The kiddie car landing gear on the DC-4, DC-6 and DC-7 made it a little more academic
than the conventional gear on the DC-3 but the debate ranged on.
I understand that some airlines designated one or the other as the method to be used
but my airline allowed the pilots to use their own discretion. Some of the instructors
tried very hard to influence that decision but I always felt that the wingdowners were
the big winner. (Remember, I’m prejudiced!)
Back to your question Tom. When the 707 and DC-8 were introduced, the kick it out
boys said: ”Hey guys, all you wingdowners are going to have to land with the kick out
now because if you don’t, you are going to catch a pod,”
I managed to fly the left seat of various jet airplanes for some 24 years before I retired
and remained a slave to the wing down crosswind method. However, I am sure my
technique was different in the DC-8, 720, 747 and such than it was in the Caravelle and
others which had no engines out there on the wing to worry about.
The 747 was particularly tricky as spoilers are deployed on main gear spoolup and that

25
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

effectively doubles the authority of whatever aileron input is held. We wing downers
had to be very sensitive to the maingear spinup and remove half of the aileron at just
the right time. If the aileron was held too long, the into the wing would drop and catch
a pod. If too much aileron is taken out, the airplane will roll to the downwind side and
catch a pod.
The kick out crowd would hold the crab until just before they thought it would touch
and then shove in the rudder and opposite aileron. Hopefully it would touch fairly well
pointed down the runway and before any appreciable drift developed to the down wind
side. If the aircraft touched before the kickout, there was the potential for a roll to
develop toward the downwind pod and a few were hit that way. If the kick out was a
little too early, a downwind drift developed and the normal reaction was to paste it on.
The flat landing which then occurs, brings the engine pods closer to the surface and an
occasional pod was dragged during the ensuing recovery.
Those are the academic discussions we had and arguments used. Pods were drug by
both camps.
It wasn’t anywhere near as bad as I make it sound because we aviators are always arguing
about how good we are and obviously only those of great skill could ever successfully
navigate the skies!
Very few pods were drug by either camp and those that were, often just had a scratch or
two which could be signed off after an inspection and taken out on a trip immediately.
The first four engine jet I flew was the 720. It was a version of the 707 for those who
may not be familiar. That series had more than it’s share of catching pods, possibly
due to it’s being the first kid on the block, but I always thought that it was something
of a wiggler also.
I was constantly cautioning my copilots to be sure and get that nose pointing down the
runway before contact, whether they used the kickout or the wing down.
After a thousand or so hours in the airplane I gained enough confidence in the machine
so that when I had a copilot who was going to land sideways, I decided to just go ahead
and let it touch. I expected a lurch to the downwind side which I could correct with my
consummate skill since I knew it was going to happen.
Lo and behold the old clunker came on just as nice as could be! Just like an Ercoupe!
The key was to be sure that the mass of the airplane was tracking down the runway!
Just like any other aircraft I have ever flown. The 720 would settle down on the mains
and as traction was gained the nose would swing around to an appropriate heading, the
only action necessary was to apply the upwind aileron at a rate which would preclude
the wing rolling that might otherwise occur.
I was fortunate enough to attend a session at the US Airforce Test Pilots School last
November at which the highlight for me was an opportunity to fly the T-38 for one hour
and ten minutes, an hour and a half if you include the taxi time! (Looks good in my log

26
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

book)
The big thing I came away with was that the Airforce pilots have been taught to go
ahead and let it land sideways for the last twenty years or so! No wonder our current
crop of airline pilots tend to favor the kick it out method. Obviously there are a lot of
considerations that I certainly haven’t covered.
The big thing is that the methods aren’t really all that different and each has nuances of
technique that we all sneak in that have seasonings of the other flavor. Think it through
and use that which appropriate for the type of aircraft and the conditions that prevail.
Didn’t someone mention something about how to skin a cat?
Happy Skies
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990122 110336 msg00982.tex]

27
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Demonstrated Crosswind Component

Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:09:32

In a message dated 1/22/99 3:27:14 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Isn’t the demonstrated crosswind component in our poh the best that could
be done with a test pilot in that particular airplane? Cheers Carmine
Pecoraro

Good Afternoon Carmine Pecoraro,

It could be in some cases, but it is normally the greatest crosswind that was available
during the certification testing program.
That is why it is informational and not limiting. Some professional flight departments
and many individual operators have adopted the maximum demonstrated cross wind
figure as the maximum to be used for their operation, but it is not a limit as far as the
FEDs are concerned. It was not a limit for the airline at which I was employed, but
many of the pilots would use it as a limit. That is certainly a reasonable thing to do.
Those who elected to land with higher winds, and were successful, were not criticized
for doing so.
It is not uncommon for a manufacturer to come out with an amended maximum demon-
strated crosswind figure for their airplane when the one used during certification testing
has proven to be a competitive disadvantage to the sale of their product.
There is another rather nefarious use made of the certification process. In some cases,
the use of aggressive control inputs to control the direction of the aircraft in a crosswind
introduces sufficient drag such that the accelerate/stop distances are adversely affected.
In that case, the manufacturer may elect to demonstrate their performance to some
lesser crosswind component so as to get better numbers for the stop and go situation.
Nothing is simple is it?
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990122 170932 msg01007.tex]

28
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

Descent Below MDA

Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:48:04

In a message dated 2/17/00 12:15:20 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I know of no FAA approval to descend below MDA without the runway

environment in sight, prior to the MAP.

Good Afternoon Dana,

I think you are correct, but there is a caveat. The FAA changed the wording many years
ago and the rules no longer say ”runway environment in sight.”
They currently list ten options for acceptable visual guidance cues. Nine of those will
allow a descent all the way to the runway as long as one of the required visual cues
is in sight and the visibility is at or above that required for the approach. The tenth
cue, the approach light system, will allow descent to one hundred feet above the touch
down zone (provided the visibility is at or above minima). If one or more of the other
nine cues, the red terminating bars or the red side row bar lights of the approach light
system are in sight by one hundred feet above the touch down zone elevation, then the
approach may be continued. Otherwise, a missed approach is mandatory.
I agree that is rather picky, but the FAA does define things rather thoroughly these
days!
Besides, it’s been a slow day!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000217 164804 msg03079.tex]

29
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Descent Below MDA

Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:43:46

In a message dated 2/17/00 5:51:40 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

I can imagine the ”runway environment” rule was loosely interpreted by

pilots before the FAA narrowly defined it.

Good Evening Bob,

You are quite correct! There were some pretty loose conditions that were utilized under
that provision.
It is my recollection that there was an accident where the individual had descended
upon sighting a Kentucky Fried Chicken. He was aware that there was a KFC near the
end of the runway. According to the story I remember, it was the wrong KFC!
Maybe someone in our group has a more accurate memory of the precipitative action
which brought about the current regulation.
Let’s face it, the vast majority of the FARs have an accident that brought them about!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000217 214346 msg03086.tex]

30
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

Crosswing Landing - Fuel Unporting

Thu, 21 Jan 1999 22:12:08

Good Evening John Small,

In a message dated 1/21/99 2:19:18 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

This would be the ’uphill’ tank that would un-port wouldn’t it? The ’down-
hill’ tank, or the wing pointed into the slip would have the fuel placed
against the wing root I believe.

Let’s consider it this way. You are landing with a left crosswind, you lower the left wing
for crosswind compensation and establish a slip sufficiently strong to do so. If you are
feeding from the left fuel tank there is a possibility that the intake in the left tank may
un-ported. It is located at the root of the wing and with the left wing down, the root is
the highest portion of the tank.
The safest move would be to select the right tank for landings with a left crosswind and
the left tank for landings with a right crosswind.
Does that add up?
Happy Skies
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990121 221208 msg00962.tex]

31
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

GS Failure
Sat, 30 Dec 2000 10:51:09

In a message dated 12/30/00 8:04:27 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Makes me wonder how many others have flown stuck GS needles into the
ground, where the investigators did not realize what happened.

Good Morning Once Again Mike,

Sorry to follow so closely with another message, but I did want to comment on this
aspect of the stuck needle problem.
I hope you don’t mind if I use your message as a springboard for some review of what
we should be monitoring on an ILS approach.
Your point is well taken, but there are a lot of other things that should protect a pilot
from flying a stuck needle into the ground.
Before we had so many methods of cross checking our approaches, we were always
cautioned to make an input to the controls anytime the needles were steady for more than
a couple of seconds. While the primary concern was a failure of the ground transmitter
or the aircraft’s receiver, that technique would surely have shown a pilot that his needles
were stuck.
For me, it is rarely necessary that I put that intentional error input to the controls
because my approaches generally wiggle enough on their own!
There is still the DA(H), usually at 200 feet AG. If the pilot flew the stuck needles to 200
AG and then executed the required missed approach, it is unlikely that he/she would
hit anything unless the aircraft had made an unusually steep descent.
If we look at the descent table for our anticipated ground speed and set up that rate of
descent at the time the glide slope comes down from the top of the instrument and hits
the center, we would be unlikely to be so far from the threshold that we would hit an
obstacle in the approach zone.
I am not fully up to speed on the current TERPS, but my recollection is that the slope
for the ILS approach final clearance zone is around forty to one. That puts the highest
allowable obstacle at one statute mile from the threshold around 132 feet (disregarding
the earths curvature of course). A two hundred foot obstacle would have to be at least
one and one half statute miles from the threshold.
While I agree that a stuck glide slope needle is not a Good Thing, if the normal ILS
procedures are followed, there are a lot of things that should let our stalwart aviator
know that things are not what they should be.
Intercepts from above the glide slope are OK, but having a nice stable level flight segment
before the intercept point allows an observation of the steady descent of the needle from

32
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

the top of the instrument case to the center. An initiation of the planned descent rate
should cause the needle to stabilize near the center. As we pass the outer marker, or an
approved substitute, the altitude should be checked. If all of that seems OK, the needle
is in the center, STUCK OR NOT, and we maintain the expected rate of descent, we
should arrive at two hundred feet awfully close to the middle marker, (provided it has
not been decommissioned)!
In any case, if the required visual cues are not visible at the DA(H), a miss is in order.
So, even if the needle does stick after the outermarker altitude check and, even if we do
have such confidence in our stabilized approach that we don’t check for a stuck needle,
the approach should not result in the aircraft hitting the ground, provided that the pilot
does not bust the minima.
My point is, there was considerable monitoring capability designed into the basic ILS
approach when it was conceived. Even if we don’t have redundant equipment, we should
be able to safely handle component failure.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001230 105109 msg18677.tex]

33
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

GUMP Check
Sun, 11 Jul 1999 17:12:28

Good Afternoon All,

Does anyone besides me remember the cartoon character Andy Gump?
That was where the GUMP came from, it was easy to tell the W.W.II guys to remember
old Andy GUMP.
Shortly after W.W.II, many of us started adding an F (for Flaps) to the string and
in some areas of the country, GUMPF is still quite prevalent. Some of the purists are
complaining about using the G for fuel since gasoline is no longer the prevalent fuel, but
I still use it and did so when I was flying turbine aircraft as well.
Whatever works for you is the way to go!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS - Incidentally, for me the M reminds me to adjust the mixture for what I desire it
to be for the landing. That is generally quite well leaned out. The same thing goes for
the P. I set the Prop for a range that will give me reasonable response considering the
altitude, temperature and the weight of the aircraft. With my Bonanza that is usually
somewhere between 2000 and 2200 RPM.
If you have the governor control all the way forward, you will not get thrust as soon as
you will with the governor set for some lower RPM and it is likely to overspeed on a
panic go around. If you are making a go around, setting the mixture and propeller as
appropriate should be part of your go-around procedure anyhow!
[ARTICLES/19990711 171228 msg05914.tex]

34
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

Go Around Configuration - Baron

Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:46:58

In a message dated 2/26/01 7:48:59 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I retract them at 400 feet AGL because of the Baron’s ”settling” habit.
That’s what we do at the airline too so it’s easy to remember.
–Pete

Good Morning Pete and Tom,

Even the Baron flaps CAN be retracted without a ”settling,” IF the airspeed is at or
above the appropriate speed for the flap configuration which is to be selected AND the
aircraft is rotated to maintain that speed.
The selection of a speed to be maintained on the approach and the ability to maintain
that speed are key elements of the approach.
Difficult pitch changes do occur in some aircraft. If the trim change is extreme, that can
certainly be a valid reason to change to a different procedure, but a firm rotation will
eliminate the settling IF the initial speed is proper.
It has been a few years since I was actively instructing in the Baron and I don’t remember
the amount of pitch change required, but I am confident that I taught that full flap could
be used, when power and weight allowed, and I am absolutely certain that I taught the
flaps should be retracted fully as soon as the speed was appropriate.
Once again, I would like to emphasize that we didn’t require a full flap approach, we
just suggested that as much flap be used as could comfortably be carried with the power
and weight that existed. We trained to full flap and demonstrated full flap misses were
not difficult, provided appropriate speeds were chosen and maintained.
My recollection is that the Baron went around so well that there was little need for
rapid action of any sort, but I have always been a stickler for accurate and positive
speed control, so I imagine some relatively aggressive pitch efforts were made!
We were operating three Twin Bonanzas in our charter fleet during the time that we
adopted the full flap approach as the suggested standard. The POH for that airplane
suggested making an initial flap retraction to an intermediate setting, I think it was
fifteen degrees, but am not sure. We found that very unhandy to do and eliminated the
step by setting the goal of attaining clean speed before raising any flap and just making
one retraction. We found, through experimentation, that the aircraft was rarely flown
below the optimum clean flap speeds anywhere except in the very last stages of the
flare for landing. Even there, by the time the power was applied, there was generally
adequate airspeed to go for the clean configuration without going to an intermediate
setting.

35
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Due to the current litigious climate, I might be less inclined to recommend operating
procedures that differ from the POH than I was in 1960!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS Pete, what type of equipment are you operating at your airline?
[ARTICLES/20010226 114658 msg04648.tex]

36
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

Go Around Configuration
Sat, 24 Feb 2001 10:38:22

In a message dated 2/24/01 9:09:48 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Then get the flaps up slowly after reaching Vy. BTW, I keep flaps up until
landing is assured. I have a C33.

Good Morning Mike,

Your procedure is fine, but I must comment!
There is no other way to bring the flaps up on any Bonanza or Bonanza derivative except
to bring them up slowly!
The older the Bonanza, the slower the flaps will come up. There were some increases
made throughout the production of the twelve volt machines, but no major change in
retraction speed occurred until 1978 and the application of the twenty-four volt system.
Even those are relatively slow coming up.
There is an Old Wives Tale out there concerning the danger of retracting flaps due to
the potential of a loss of altitude, an increase in rate of descent or a decrease in rate of
climb which might occur during the flap retraction.
There is absolutely no truth to that particular OWT, PROVIDED that the speed is
maintained at or above the speed that is equivalent to the best angle of climb speed for
the flap position to which you are going. I would recommend that the speed always be
kept not only above the best angle of climb speed, but well above that, possibly as high
as the best rate of climb speed, throughout the approach if the approach minima you
desire to use will allow.
As long as the speed is above the appropriate speed for the flap configuration that you
have selected, there will be NO loss in performance during retraction.
Even a manually operated flap can be snapped up with no problem if the aircraft is
rotated in pitch rapidly enough to maintain the airspeed.
The key is to always be at, or at least, rapidly accelerating toward, the optimum speed
for the flap configuration you will end up with.
Speed - speed - speed. Not fast, but accurately controlled SPEED. That is the answer!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010224 103822 msg04455.tex]

37
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Approach Airspeed - Greater Than Normal

Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:33:01

Good Afternoon Bob Newman,

In a message dated 1/30/99 1:51:31 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

Then he told me I had jet traffic directly behind and requested I maintain
140 if possible. My approach was uhh ... shall we say unstabilized. How
does one configure the airplane to get stabilized on the glideslope at this
speed? I usually use the gear to establish the descent rate necessary to
track the glideslope at 105 knots on the ILS; but that was not an option
this night. What’s the right way to do this? Did the controller make an
unreasonable request?

Last things first: No the controller did not make an unreasonable request, provided that
you wished to accept it.
For your purpose of training, it was probably not appropriate. At this stage of the game
you should be making those stabilized approaches and, depending on the type of airplane
and the minima to which you are operating, the 105 knots is not an unreasonable speed
to use.
The 140 knot request is not an unusual one to receive when flying at airports with a fair
amount of jet traffic. It is a speed that most air carrier aircraft can accommodate and
so is often used for separation.
If I am shooting an approach in weather that is truly down around the minima, I will
advise the controller before the intercept of the speed I intend to use on final. If the
weather is well above minima, say 800 feet when the DH/DA is 200 or so, I will leave the
wheels in the wells, the flaps up and let her slide down the ILS at a nice stabilized 140
knots. Works great and the faster you are going, the easier it is to track the localizer
and glide slope. BUT, if that is the plan, you must have a method worked out to get
your aircraft configured for the landing maneuver after you break out at the 600 foot
level or so, and that can be tricky for some of our airplanes. The length of the runway
will be a consideration as will the visibility.
If things don’t work out, you must be mentally prepared to execute the go around
procedure even though the conditions may be well above the minima. You have effec-
tively raised your personal minima to the amount that will be required so that you can
reconfigure your aircraft.
At your stage of training, I would suggest that you stick with a speed chosen by you
and your instructor as the most desirable for the type of approach that you are using
and try to advise the controller early about your plans. They will generally be most
accommodating at all except the very busy airports.

38
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

Just one more small point. Be sure the approach speed chosen is consistent with the
minima to which you are operating. If you are going to fly to the Category A minima,
you must be 90 knots or less, if you elect to fly at 105 knots you must use the Category B
minima. For straight in approaches, that is rarely a problem, but for circling approaches
it can be a significant factor.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990130 153301 msg01497.tex]

39
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Approach Airspeed
Sun, 7 Nov 1999 11:47:31

In a message dated 11/7/99 9:47:01 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I am a new owner of a V35B and am uncertain as to what speeds I should be

flying downwind/base and final in VFR patterns and when to start setting
up for Vectored Approach’s? I 17 hours in on training unfortuneatly several
different CFI’s which each had there own different way of setting up.
Any help whould sure be appreciated.
Thanks bv [email protected] (Bob Vanderheiden)

Good Morning Bob,

The thing that is sometimes neglected in training is that there is a big difference from
the minimum to the maximum weights at which you are likely to operate your airplane.
The power off, gear down, full flap stalling speed for your airplane is listed as 63 mph
when it is at the gross weight of 3400 pounds. Should you be flying solo with minimum
fuel on board you might well be at a weight as low as 2550 pounds! The stalling speed
with it in the dirty configuration and power off would be less than 54 mph at that lighter
weight. Add a little power and the stall speed drops rapidly. In the same configuration
and with full power it could be as little as 44 mph!
The FAA recommends that maneuvering and approach speeds be determined in reference
to the stall speed of the configuration in which the aircraft is being flown.
For maneuvering (such as downwind) the minimum recommended speed would be 150
per cent of stall speed. Approach should be at a minimum of 130 per cent of stall.
Almost everyone recommends that speed be increased on final when there is any wind
and especially in gusty conditions.
I like the rule of thumb whereby I add one half of the steady reported wind and the full
reported gust value to the approach speed, but I limit the total addition to twenty knots
for the Bonanza.
If I were flying the airplane at 2550 pounds with full flaps and the gear down while
carrying a little power, the stall speed would be below 54 mph. 130 per cent of that
figure would be 70.2 mph. That would be the minimum recommended final approach
speed. Should the wind be reported as west ten, gusts to twenty and I was landing on
runway 27, I would add fifteen to the calculated speed for a new minimum approach
speed of 85.2 mph. That should work well at that light weight.
The same numbers developed for max gross would be stall speed 63, 130 percent speed
81.9 and with the wind correction, 96.9.

40
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

Now I wouldn’t expect anyone to calculate those numbers every time, but the exercise
should be done enough times so that the principle is understood and the large difference
in speeds for different conditions understood.
For what it is worth, my V35B has all speeds listed in knots and I use 100 to 110
on downwind, slow to 80 to 90 on base and 70 to 80 plus whatever wind correction is
pertinent on final. Over the fence I try to have the speed down another ten knots or so.
The ten knot range is for the difference between maximum and minimum weights.
Hope that helps!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991107 114731 msg10275.tex]

41
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Interesting Approaches
Fri, 28 Jan 2000 22:03:16

In a message dated 1/28/00 8:30:50 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Anyone know any other strange approaches? Anyone ever fly the approach
to JFK that requires one to turn while descending, following the lead in
lights?

Good Evening Howard,

That is the Canarsie approach. There is a set of lights for the right runway and one for
the left. It makes a very nice approach, but the most interesting one of all was the ILS
to the southeast runway at the old Hong Kong airport. It was closed a year or so ago.
You flew a standard localizer and glideslope to a position in space that was 600 feet
above the airport and a mile and a half or so southwest of the runway. You then stated
to look for a large checkerboard sign on the side of the mountain ahead. When it was
adequately in sight, you would start a right turn to pick up the runway. There was also
a set of flashing lead in lights such as those used at JFK, but the turn was a lot tighter
and the flight path was a lot closer to the obstacles over which the approach was flown.
Interestingly, it had a very good safety record and there were rarely any misses after the
600 foot point. It was such a demanding procedure that everyone was really up for it
and generally right on the numbers for speed, altitude and attitude.
Ah, for the good old days!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000128 220316 msg01970.tex]

42
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

Night Landings
Wed, 1 Mar 2000 10:16:32

In a message dated 2/29/00 9:19:41 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Could you expand of this topic a bit more. At Lee (KANP) - 2500’ with
displacements, I am nervous about night landings. Steve

Good Morning Steve,

I don’t know how much good I could do over this forum! Exactly where in the process of
utilizing available cues any individual is currently, is difficult to evaluate via the written
word. Not only that, there are a multitude of adequate ways to solve the visual approach
equation.
The instructor who asked that you start your landing procedure by determining the
proper approach speed utilizing 1.3 times your stall speed was on the right track. I hope
he/she added that the speed should be determined based upon your actual operating
weight, not your maximum allowable gross, and that the resulting speed should be
adjusted for wind and gust conditions.
That same sort of evaluation should be used for every problem perceived.
The relative difficulty of a night approach is dependent on the cues available to delineate
the landing area and the obstacles on the approach. With good, evenly spaced runway
lights and adequate obstacle lighting it may even be easier to make a precision approach
and touchdown at night than it is in the daytime!
Individual problems, I may be able to discuss, but for the big picture, let’s discuss it at
the Bonanza table in the Type Club Tent at Sun ’n Fun.
Your 2500 foot strip is 170 feet longer than the one I fly out of and we have no obstruction
lighting on the obstacles that control our twenty to one displaced thresholds.
I find that I am often closer to the proper numbers and often use less runway at night
than I do in the daytime.
I almost forgot to mention, you should be able to land with as much precision without
the landing lights as you can with the landing lights on a well lit runway. The primary
uses of the landing lights are to aid in picking up obstacles in time to avoid them, pick
out landing areas that have unlit guidance cues and to aid in making a smooth touch
down. As I said before, in some fog or haze conditions, the landing lights can be a
detriment.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000301 101632 msg03986.tex]

43
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Night Landings
Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:09:27

In a message dated 3/1/00 8:23:48 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Part of my night flying equipment is a 3 D-cell Maglite which is bright

enough to aid during taxi. Don’t try to use it for a landing light though.

Good Morning Bob,

During my early instructing days, we were flying off an unlit grass field. The curriculum
did require night landings. On the nights when we were going to do night landings
(funny, we never discussed night takeoffs, just night landings!) we would set those
round black kerosene flare pots along the edge of the grass area to give us a fair idea of
where the landing area was. We didn’t use a lot of them, generally one on each side of
the runway at each end and one on each side at the middle.
That gave us enough to determine the alignment, but nothing to tell us when to flare.
I tried using a big three cell flashlight to help find the ground, but found that it was
of little help. The area that should be used to judge the flare is out in front of the
airplane and not alongside. The flashlight was not powerful enough to light up an area
far enough in front of the airplane to do any good and actually interfered with observing
other cues when pointed at the ground close in.
None of us really have any depth perception at altitudes used in the flare maneuver.
What we think is depth perception is evaluation of the size of known objects. That is
why the one eyed pilots do just as good a job as the rest of us.
What did work for us to help the students decide when to flare was to just keep it
descending until the glow from the running lights were visible in their peripheral vision.
That low intensity light only lit up the ground when we were close enough that the flare
wouldn’t be too high and yet we still had time to arrest the descent.
It worked like a charm on the J-3s, Champs and T-Crafts of the day.
Later on, when I was instructing in helicopters, we found that the same technique was
very helpful in low altitude maneuvering. The landing lights were required for good
autorotations in an unlit area, but for general maneuvering they tended to blot out all
other visual cues. The running lights gave just the right amount of illumination without
interfering with the view of things further away.
One more subject that I just thought of that is pertinent to the night landing discussion.
If you are landing on a large sod, gravel, dirt or other surface that has no lines or direct
guidance on the landing surface, once you are on the ground, the landing lights are
worthless for telling where the landing area is. Whatever is in your landing lights gives
you the impression that you are going straight. You may be going straight all right, but

44
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

not necessarily straight in the direction desired. It is imperative that there be a method
of maintaining a course that will keep you aligned with the landing surface. Hopefully
there will be a light at the end of the landing surface which may be aimed for.
A very good method of maintaining alignment is to go back on instruments. Note the
heading that you are holding during the final stages of the stabilized approach, correct
that for any drift or wind correction angle and nail that heading during the rollout.
If I am going to land on an unlit surface and someone has offered to light that surface
with an automobile, it is best to have them place the car so that it is pointed away
from the runway at the far end. It there are two cars available, you can place one at
the approach end with it pointing toward the landing area. I then land over the first
one and head toward the taillights of the second. The head lights of the first aid in
determining the landing area. I land using landing lights, if I have them, and then turn
them off immediately following touch down. Haven’t had to do that in many years, but
it worked OK when I was young and foolish! It is imperative that the persons placing
the automobiles be knowledgeable individuals!
Enough reminiscing!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000301 110927 msg03992.tex]

45
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Reporting ”Procedure Turn Inbound”

Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:32:44

In a message dated 4/26/00 10:51:32 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

When ATC asks you to report ”procedure turn inbound”, does that mean
report when you complete your 180 turn and are on the inbound LEG of
the procedure turn, or when you turn from the inboung leg onto the final
approach leg?

Good Morning Jason,

The accepted interpretation is that point at which you have completed the normal 180
degree turn and are starting the leg from which you will intercept the inbound course.
In the days of yore when procedure turns were common and many folks used the 80/260
course reversal procedure, common practice was to call the procedure turn inbound when
the heading was passing through a position ninety degrees to the inbound course.
I don’t recall ever seeing any of this in writing, but it was discussed with the air traffic
folks at the time and it was agreed that such a notification was pertinent. You definitely
are not expected to wait until established on the inbound course before making the call.
If the controller wants that, he/she will ask for a call when established.
If you are late with the call and don’t make it until you are established inbound, that
is how the call should be made. ”Bonanza 20318 established inbound” not ”procedure
turn inbound.”
Does that help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000426 123244 msg07096.tex]

46
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

Missed Approach - Nav Failure

Fri, 28 Jan 2000 20:59:45

In a message dated 1/28/00 4:37:51 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

Hi, IF you were at the outer marker and the GS, and the LOC both went
out, what would you do? Continue to fly the heading for a while and then
guess where the MAP was and do the missed? Hypothetical in this age
of radar, I’m sure, but just curious. Maybe do a 180 back to the hold?
Dunno’. John

Good Evening John,

It has been a couple of years since I reviewed the TERPS, but just off the top of my
head I think this is still the basic philosophy.
All missed approach procedures are drawn so that they have at least a chance of being
flown with no facility guidance at all. The theory is that any time you are executing
any approach procedure there is the potential for failure of the aid being used. It is
anticipated that the pilot will fly to the point at which the MAP or DA/DH would have
been, plus any distance that would be flown during any required straight ahead climb
before starting any turns. This obviously leaves a lot of loose ends to be covered by
the pilot using deductive reasoning procedures. There are many approaches around the
world which would be very difficult to fly without some sort of positional guidance. A
couple that come immediately to mind are the miss at Aspen, Colorado and the miss
from the northwest bound approach at the old Hong Kong airport!
With the proliferation of radars now available, the situation is much improved, but the
DR is still the basis for the missed approach procedure.
This brings up the point of timing the approach. There is no doubt that it would help
ones situational awareness to have an exact time at which the FAF was crossed, but I
know of no requirement that it be done other than on those approaches where it is a
specified method of defining the MAP. When timing is the specified method, the missed
approach procedure provides a greater obstacle clear zone during the miss than when
the MAP is defined only by a DME or GPS fix. I imagine a case could be made that
one should always have a time from which to base the evaluation of the DR during a
non-guided miss, but it just isn’t required!
I still think that an overall view of the obstacles in the area and at least a rough idea
of where the missed approach goes and why it does so, is about all any one mind can
handle.
In any case, if the approach is abandoned for any reason, the climb to missed approach
altitude may be commenced any time after the FAF. Turns are to be initiated either by
the guidance shown on the procedure, or by the pilots best estimate of his position so
as to comply with the track described for the missed approach procedure.

47
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

I think that is still current information!

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000128 205945 msg01960.tex]

48
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH

Visual Decent Point (VDP) Usefulness

Sun, 14 Jan 2001 10:02:13

In a message dated 1/14/01 7:35:14 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Speaking of RNAV (GPS) approaches, I haven’t had a chance yet, to study

up on VDP’s on the newer approach plates. Can you enlighten me as to
their purpose and how to use them, please? I’m sure it’s simple, but I’d
rather clear up any confusion before I really need to know! Thanks for your
help.
—-Joey Sager

Good Morning Joey,

I guess I am the wrong guy to ask because I don’t like them!
The VDPs are put on with the thought that if the runway is spotted after the VDP, it
is no longer practical to make a safe landing.
The assumption is that you are flying an airplane that is not capable of comfortably
flying a glidepath that is not close to three degrees and that must land in the Touch
Down Zone.
It is primarily pointed toward air carrier aircraft and others who are using sophisticated
Flight Management Computers which will provide some sort of a computer generated
glide path.
There are many instructors, system designers and regulators around the country who
are advocating using various methods to adapt the constant rate descent procedures
to all non precision approaches, whether the aircraft is equipped to provide electronic
guidance or not.
I think that is a mistake!
First, I think that there are many neat techniques and procedures which will work
beautifully in the simulator or in controlled training environments which don’t adapt
well to the rapidly changing conditions that are common in a deteriorating weather
situation.
Second, that effort to turn the non precision approach into a constant descent approach
tends to sucker the unwary into either executing a miss long before it is necessary or
busting the minima while looking for the runway.
Next, I believe the effort to change a non precision approach into a constant rate of
descent approach deprives the operator of a valuable resource to aid in finding and
safely landing at the airport.
It is going to be difficult for me to shorten this as I feel I am leaving out more than I am

49
1.1. AIRMAN-APPROACH CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

saying with every word I write, so please excuse all of the loose ends that are already in
this message and those to follow!
The idea of determining a point beyond which a landing will no longer be practical is a
good one. I have used, and taught, such a procedure for at least the last fifty years.
However, there are so very many conditions that should be considered that I don’t think
it is proper to delineate a point on a chart where everyone should make that decision.
I have experimented with my Bonanza and find that a comfortable approach can be
made on a glide path as steep as six degrees. Much higher angles could be used with a
head wind and power off, but six degree works well and allows enough power to make
corrections at ninety knots, calm winds and relatively low elevations. I haven’t checked
it at high altitude airports.
There are many airplanes, from the Helio Courier to the Lockheed C-130 that are capable
of much steeper descents than a Bonanza.
The length of the runway in relation to the landing distance required by the airplane
you are flying is a major consideration in determining the point at which a landing is
no longer a safe, practical, maneuver.
If I am at six hundred feet at the threshold of a twelve thousand foot runway when I spot
the runway, it is any easy and safe maneuver to continue straight ahead to a landing IF
I am flying a Bonanza or other aircraft capable of as steep, or steeper, an approach at
ninety knots or less.
For an air carrier operated 747, the VDP makes sense. I think it is a very poor idea to
restrict the operation of all aircraft just to comply with a point that is applicable to a
few.
Publishing such a point tends to imply that anyone who operates otherwise is operating
beyond the rules and that is definitely not the case.
It also discourages the operator from properly evaluating the conditions that do apply to
the individual approach and that leads to developing a breed of pilots who don’t think
for themselves.
To me, the publishing of a VDP is a bad idea. That point should be determined by every
operator considering the individual factors which apply to the specific case at hand.
Thanks for asking, I bet your sorry you did, however if you would care for me to expand
on any of the points covered, I would be happy to attempt to do so, but it won’t be
short!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010114 100213 msg00900.tex]

50
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

1.2 AIRMAN-MISC

51
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Aileron Rolls
Wed, 1 Mar 2000 12:21:04

In a message dated 3/1/00 10:14:16 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

This reminds me. I have a friend - a fellow pilot - who was always trying
to get me to do an aileron roll in my V35B. This was several years ago. He
claimed to have done it many times in such a plane, though his young age
made me doubt that statement somewhat. Anyone ever try this? He never
persuaded me to try it, although it did sound like fun. Would it cause
adverse effects to any of the instruments or the plane? —-Joey

Good Morning Joey,

This is a tough question on which to comment.
Let me start by relaying a story which I heard many years ago which may or may not
be true.
It was said that the absolute first aerobatic Debbie made was sold to a very successful
person in Colorado Springs who had been a Navy fighter pilot. The story was that he
picked up the airplane at the factory and as he was approaching his home airport, called
on Unicom and told the locals to come out to the runway and watch his arrival. He
was making a nice high speed pass down the main runway. As he arrived near where
everyone was watching, up went the nose and he started a roll. You guessed it, he dished
out and bored in!
The supposition is that he practiced a bit on the way home and felt that he was back
in his fighter trim.
The story may or may not be true, I don’t know, but it did hit fairly close to home.
Back in the early fifties, I was a copilot flying the DC-6. That airplane utilized a flight
engineer. Most of them were new hires fresh out of the military and we civilians always
enjoyed hearing all of their wonderful tales.
One of those engineers had been instructing in the Beech Mentor and we discussed
aerobatics at length. I had never done aileron rolls. In the Stearman that I flew when
doing aerobatics, we had always done slow rolls. The idea of doing a roll that never had
any negative G forces appealed to me greatly!
We discussed the similarity of the Bonanza and the Mentor and came to the worldly
experienced decision that the Bonanza ought to roll just as nice as did the Mentor. He
assured me that the Mentor went around sweet and smooth and never showed more
than a G and a quarter to a G and a half during the maneuver.
Well, the next day I took out the straight model 35 in which I was a partner, got it
up to a reasonable altitude, stuck the nose down to build the speed my flight engineer

52
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

had suggested, pitched it up to the nose high attitude that he had designated, threw in
the aileron, released the backpressure a bit as it went inverted, as I had been told, and
completed the roll. It worked beautifully and was just as my engineer had described.
So – The next day I loaded up my partner and went out to show him what I had learned.
Fortunately, I went to five thousand feet AGL to show off. I thought I did it exactly as
I had the day before, but somehow it didn’t work! I dished out and ended up heading
straight for terra firma with the speed rapidly approaching the redline.
The point is that even if the roll can be completed safely IF everything goes just right,
the airplane is not built to stand the forces that might be put upon it if the maneuver
is not properly performed.
In addition, it is just plain illegal to do it in an airplane that is not certificated for such
flight.
There are many places that you can go and fly with competent instructors in airplanes
that are suitability certificated.
As to possible damage of the instruments in your airplane. That depends on the instru-
ments installed. Most folks who have aerobatic aeroplanes install instruments that are
supposed to be non-tumbling. That helps, but most seem to overhaul their instruments
more often than do those of us who don’t do aerobatics in our airplanes equipped with
the same instruments.
Have fun, but keep it legal!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000301 122104 msg04005.tex]

53
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Aileron Rolls
Wed, 1 Mar 2000 12:58:28

In a message dated 3/1/00 11:23:17 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I understand an aileron roll is undesirable because it might cause the engine

oil pickup to go dry for the duration. A barrel role, correctly performed,
will most likely not cause this to happen.
Howard

Good Morning Howard,

There is obviously some confusion between the various type of rolls. This is not new, it
has been true as long as I have been flying and is dependent on who the authority is as
to who is correct.
I accept the interpretation that a slow roll is that roll in which the airplane is actually
flying in the inverted position when it is upside down in relation to the ground.
The barrel roll is one in which there is a positive, at least one G, pull all of the way
around.
Between those two extremes are various rolls which I would term aileron rolls. When
does a ”loosened” barrel roll become an aileron roll and when does a very slow aileron
roll become a slow roll? That is always open to interpretation.
The classic style of slow roll is a very uncomfortable maneuver. First you are laying over
on one side trying to keep the nose from dropping during the hopefully momentary knife
edge flight, then comes a little more comfortable time hanging inverted by the straps
while the airplane is actually flying upside down and then that other effort at getting
through the knife edge flight and back up to normal flight.
Now, if you happen to be lucky enough to be flying a T-38, you just shove the stick over
to one side or the other and the airplane will just spin around to it’s hearts content.
Is that a slow roll or an aileron roll? Hard to say and yet no other control input is
required other than to shove the stick to one side or the other! The roll normally seen at
airshows, as done by Bob Hoover and Bobby Younkin, are what I would call an aileron
roll. A reasonable pitch up to position the nose for the start of the maneuver, aileron
toward the direction of desired roll, a little rudder input to keep the nose describing a
reasonably small circle and a relaxed back pressure during the ”inverted” portion of the
flight followed by an increased back pressure as the aircraft is once again level with the
world. No extreme cross control, almost coordinated flight and no negative G, but it
can get close to zero while inverted. That is what I mean when I say aileron roll. A
full barrel roll is completely coordinated all of the way around. In the WW II days, it
was considered that the G force should be constant all of the way around as well, but
most of us thought they felt a little nicer if the back pressure was released just a little

54
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

bit when inverted. I guess that was the start of the aileron roll!
Other folks have other definitions, but those are the ones that I use.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000301 125828 msg04010.tex]

55
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Closing Cabin Door In Flight

Mon, 28 Feb 2000 15:27:40

In a message dated 2/28/00 2:00:07 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Can’t speak for the Bonanza, but in a Piper you can often close the door
if you first open the pilot’s vent window.....

Good Evening All,

Please don’t try it!
There is a good chance of bending the door and it is a hassle in any case. If you have
just departed from a place to which you cannot possibly return and have several hours
of flight in freezing temperatures, it might be worth the effort to close the door.
If you absolutely want to make the effort, try to remove the upholstery from the back
of the door and up on top. On most of the airplanes, the covering up on top will pry
out easily. The lower back is tougher. If you have a passenger, it is easier but it can be
done when you are alone. Pull on the rear of the door until the back latch has engaged,
(opening the pilot weather window and fish tailing the airplane does help) then reach up
and pull in on the top while you rotate the latching mechanism to the locked position.
It is really much better to just come back in and land. It is noisy but the open door
will affect the performance very little at the lower airspeeds. If you get real slow on an
approach, the door will swing out a little just before the stall and the right wing will
stall first. Normal approach speeds are more than adequate, but I wouldn’t hold it off
a long time.
Back in the days when I was doing a lot of Bonanza instruction, we used to include door
pops with all of our students. We experimented with various procedures to close the
door in flight and success was variable and individual airplane dependent.
I actually installed handles on one of my straight thirty-fives to demonstrate the feasi-
bility of doing the ”pull it closed” technique described above.
I quit doing the door pop as a normal thing when I noticed that some of the doors were
becoming ill fitting. Even if a student wants to do a door pop in his own airplane for
training, I strongly recommend that no effort be made to close it. The doors are not
designed for that sort of strain, they are hard to get sealed as it is, and the airplane flies
just fine with the door open.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS I have even quit taxiing in hot weather with the door open. The hinges are subjected
to a lot more wear and they are expensive and hard to repair. Why cause unnecessary
expense.

56
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

[ARTICLES/20000228 152740 msg03804.tex]

57
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Closing Door In Flight

Thu, 13 Apr 2000 16:53:30

In a message dated 2/28/00 2:00:07 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Can’t speak for the Bonanza, but in a Piper you can often close the door
if you first open the pilot’s vent window.....

Good Evening All,

Please don’t try it!
There is a good chance of bending the door and it is a hassle in any case. If you have
just departed from a place to which you cannot possibly return and have several hours
of flight in freezing temperatures, it might be worth the effort to close the door.
If you absolutely want to make the effort, try to remove the upholstery from the back
of the door and up on top. On most of the airplanes, the covering up on top will pry
out easily. The lower back is tougher. If you have a passenger, it is easier but it can be
done when you are alone. Pull on the rear of the door until the back latch has engaged,
(opening the pilot weather window and fish tailing the airplane does help) then reach up
and pull in on the top while you rotate the latching mechanism to the locked position.
It is really much better to just come back in and land. It is noisy but the open door
will affect the performance very little at the lower airspeeds. If you get real slow on an
approach, the door will swing out a little just before the stall and the right wing will
stall first. Normal approach speeds are more than adequate, but I wouldn’t hold it off
a long time.
Back in the days when I was doing a lot of Bonanza instruction, we used to include door
pops with all of our students. We experimented with various procedures to close the
door in flight and success was variable and individual airplane dependent.
I actually installed handles on one of my straight thirty-fives to demonstrate the feasi-
bility of doing the ”pull it closed” technique described above.
I quit doing the door pop as a normal thing when I noticed that some of the doors were
becoming ill fitting. Even if a student wants to do a door pop in his own airplane for
training, I strongly recommend that no effort be made to close it. The doors are not
designed for that sort of strain, they are hard to get sealed as it is, and the airplane flies
just fine with the door open.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS I have even quit taxiing in hot weather with the door open. The hinges are subjected
to a lot more wear and they are expensive and hard to repair. Why cause unnecessary
expense.

58
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

[ARTICLES/20000413 165330 msg06292.tex]

59
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Determining the Speed of an Aircraft

Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:34:18

In a message dated 11/15/99 3:04:31 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

wrote:

When in the market for an aircraft, how would one attempt to evaluate
whether an airframe is a fast one or is one that was assembled a little more
carefully?

Then— In a message dated 11/15/99 3:32:15 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

The mechanics told me that checking the rig was a very time-consuming
art form, requiring specialized tools. Fly the plane ”by the book,” then
compare it to the book to see how it does.

And—
Good Evening Bill, Tom and All,
This brings up an important point. Determining the actual speed of an airplane is a
very difficult thing to do. I find that it generally takes me a couple of hundred hours of
operation before I really get a handle on just how fast or slow any individual airplane
is.
Calculating the airspeed as Tom suggests is a very good method, IF all of the instruments
are performing as designed. Unfortunately, there is a lot of potential for error in the
indicating system on our flying machine.
One method that I have been using for the last few years (following the availability of
good cheap GPS units) is to make several runs into and out of the wind on a day when
the wind appears to be fairly steady. This isn’t accurate unless the winds are steady
and the air is neither rising nor descending, but it is the best way I know of. If anyone
has a better method, I would love to hear about it!
I turn into or out of the wind until my heading and the track made good are coincident.
I will then fly for a few miles and note the groundspeed. If it stays fairly steady and
the track stays consistent, I figure the airmass is relatively stable and I have a chance
of getting decently accurate numbers. I then make a one eighty turn and repeat the
process. Once again, if the indications are stable, I will note the ground speed, do the
math and determine an average speed which should be my airspeed if air mass conditions
have remained the same for both runs. When conditions are nice and smooth, I will
often make several runs in both directions. The more consistent the numbers, the
greater confidence I have in the numbers developed. Once a true airspeed is developed,
the speed can be calculated in the normal manner and the accuracy of the indicated
airspeed determined.
When evaluating an airplane that you are about to purchase, it is handy to have one on

60
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

which an airspeed evaluation has previously been done fly along side. That is probably
the easiest way to check an airspeed indication. If they are both indicating about the
same at high and low airspeeds, then you could calculate TAS and get a reasonable idea
how close the candidate aircraft is coming to the book figures.
As to what to look for to determine proper rig, that can be difficult, but if either of the
fixed tabs are perceptibly bent, chances are the airplane is out of rig. It is also helpful
to eyeball the flap position in relation to the wing. If either one has been drooped at
all to correct a wing heaviness, it will slow the airplane substantially. Look around the
airframe for general skin waviness and skin fits. If you see evidence of considerable oil
canning or that the skins are wavy where fastened together, it is likely that things were
forced together at the factory and the airplane is likely to be permanently out of rig. If
the bad rigging is from poor fitting in the jigs, there is not much that can be done about
it. If the bad rigging is due to the wings being improperly attached, that is fixable, but
it may not be easy!
Even Mike Smith said that rigging was mainly a matter of trial and error till things
worked right. It takes a lot of time and, if done by the book, requires a lot of expensive
tools and jigs! Ball parking and luck may do the job, but I wouldn’t count on it. Best
to buy a fast one!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991115 213418 msg10626.tex]

61
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Determining the Speed of an Aircraft

Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:40:52

In a message dated 11/15/99 9:32:57 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

In answer to your question regarding determining TAS for the aircraft, I

found the following:
http://www.ntps.com/sftware.htm
I have not used it, but the idea behind it looks right.

Good Evening Bill,

The math seems easy enough, but the usual problem still exists. There is an assumption
that the airmass conditions remain constant and that is what I find to be the biggest
and hardest to quantify variable!
I quote from the first page of the instructions:
The following assumptions were made: ”during the time it took to do the three legs,
wind and temperature did not change”
And there lies the rub!!
Thanks for the information, there are some handy ideas there.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991115 224052 msg10633.tex]

62
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

Finding Traffic Hidden by the Sun

Sat, 24 Jun 2000 09:38:57

In a message dated 6/23/00 11:29:00 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

If anyone has a strategy for finding traffic in the sun, it ought to be me,
but I don’t- any secrets or tips from the Ancient Aviator?

Good Morning Bill,

No real good one! I carry one of those little rubber instrument covers with a suction
cup on the back to cover the attitude gyro in case of a failure.
I will occasionally stick it on the windshield to cover the sun when it starts to burn holes
in my eyeballs.
I also try to change my heading about five degrees left or right and then back the other
way every two or three minutes to change the angle of closure with any traffic that is
out there.
Trouble is, I then have to move my ’Sun Spot’ !
The fighter jocks tell me that the better way is to use your thumb to cover the sun.
That way you can spot the bad guys that are trying to hide in the sun before shooting
you down!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000624 093857 msg10049.tex]

63
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Flap Setting
Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:49:11

In a message dated 6/8/00 10:15:18 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

If your bird does not have flap preselect (approach position), one can get
a pretty good approximation by extending the flaps until they are parallel
with a fully deflected aileron - i.e. yoke hard over and extend flap until flap
and aileron are parallel. Then use speeds as above.

Good Morning Jack,

That will give a very accurate position for twenty degrees of flap. Ten degrees can be
set by lining up the center of the big round washers on either side of the flap tracks with
the trailing edge of the portion of the wing ahead of the flap. Fifteen would be halfway
between.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000608 114911 msg09339.tex]

64
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

Flap Setting
Thu, 8 Jun 2000 23:06:25

In a message dated 6/8/00 8:46:25 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I like the decals that are on my flaps. Not so good at night.

Good Evening John,

Right on! Those are much more accurate than the gauge they used on the newer air-
planes. I always set mine by looking at the flap first and then checking to see what the
gauge reads. You can always use a flashlight at night if your confidence in the timing
method slips.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000608 230625 msg09370.tex]

65
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Flying ”Agressively”
Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:52:28

In a message dated 11/15/99 7:44:52 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Who of you out there would actually fly a V-tail aircraft, with a history
of structural in flight airframe failure, to put it as one of you did, ”aggre-
sively”??

Good Evening Jeffrey,

Since I am the culprit who admitted to being an aggressive pilot, I guess it is up to me
to comment. I think the important thing is to understand not only what the airplane is
capable of but what ones own nature is!
If the aggressive pilot recognizes that characteristic of his/her nature sufficiently early
to realize that it could be a problem, the problem ceases to exist.
My point was not that one would intentionally exceed any limits applied to the aircraft,
but rather that aggressive personalities need to be more aware than others that caution
and control of that aggressive personality is required.
As far as your statement: ”a V-tail aircraft, with a history of structural in flight airframe
failure” is concerned, the V-tail has a lower rate of in-flight air frame failure than many
other airplanes. It is, in fact one of the safer airplanes available. The straight tail
Debbies and stretch Debbies have an even more exceptional record and the design is to
be commended, but that does not make the V-tail dangerous. Once again, any aircraft,
not just the Bonanza, should be flown within the standards specified.
My Stearman is less likely to come apart due to encounters with poor technique than
my Bonanza, but I’ll still take the Bonanza for going places!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991115 215228 msg10627.tex]

66
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

Flying a Proper Pattern

Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:36:20

In a message dated 2/8/01 12:50:23 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:
”After takeoff, climb on the extended runway centerline to within 300 feet
of pattern altitude. At this point, you can continue straight ahead or make
a 45-degree turn to the left (to the right if the airport has a right-hand
pattern). If you will be departing to the right, wait until you are at least
pattern altitude plus 500 feet before making a right turn, and be sure to
advise on the CTAF.”
This seems reasonable to me.
George Vasick
Good Afternoon George,
Sounds reasonable to me as well.
There is something here that I think should be mentioned.
While there is a lot of confusion as to exactly what constitutes a proper pattern, I believe
the pattern is still set by the owner/operator of the airport.
The FAA makes recommendation via the AIM and ACs, such as you quote, but the
operator sets the procedure in which is then reviewed by the FEDs. I don’t recall all
of the precise language and procedures involved, but it is my recollection that the FAA
neither approves or disapproves the pattern submitted. If they think it is outlandish,
there will likely be discussions until there occurs a meeting of minds.
My opinion is that we should NOT try to force a standard pattern on all operators, but
encourage everyone to realize that there may be variations that are a good idea due to
local conditions that are not readily apparent to we itinerant operators.
I think poorly planned right turns out at a low altitude that could interfere with a
pattern commonly used at an individual airport are ill advised. But there may be local
conditions and procedures, of which I am not aware, so it behooves me to expect the
unexpected.
Air traffic separation is a cooperative affair. Rules won’t make it safe, people will.
Standard procedures help, but vigilance and expectation of the unusual make it safer
still.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS And please don’t expect all traffic to have a radio!

67
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

[ARTICLES/20010208 133620 msg03139.tex]

68
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

Flying a Proper Pattern

Sat, 10 Feb 2001 08:57:59

In a message dated 2/10/01 1:35:04 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:
I thought I remembered being told ( by an OOOLLLDDD CFI) almost
20 years ago, to always consider it a box around the runway, although we
almost always enter on the downwind leg, conceivably, one could enter on
the upwind, althought most never do....was this wrong info?
Good Morning Paul and All
I mentioned this the other day but I will repeat it again.
The pattern is set by the local airport folks. There is no pattern that is the official FAA
pattern.
They just make suggestions and will interfere only if the one chosen by the operator is
deemed to be unsafe. Many operators have designated patterns that are designed to
accommodate situations and aircraft which are peculiar to their individual operation.
I agree that a standardized procedure world wide would be nice, but let us not forget
that we all need to be vigilant regardless of where we are operating.
A turn into traffic should not create an accident if we are all looking about as we should.
(I’m not recommending it though!)
What we consider to be the absolutely best way to make a pattern is not likely to be
what many other conscientious and careful pilots think is the best.
The ”best” pattern is extremely dependent on the aircraft being flown and the operating
environment in which it is being operated.
Communications at non towered airports are always suspect.
When you transmit, there is no way to make sure that all other aircraft in the vicinity
hear what you say.
Communication only occurs when both people are listening.
No such interplay is required at a non towered airport.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010210 085759 msg03360.tex]

69
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Novel Method to Stop

Sat, 17 Jul 1999 21:14:45

In a message dated 7/17/99 7:37:26 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

I landed one rainy day and hydroplaned off the end. My neighbor cluck
clucking said why didn’t I use the differential thrust and spin the airplane
around 180 degrees and then add power to stop it? I didn’t think of that.
He said he had done it twice in his E55 Baron, and his wife backed him up.
BTW the houses and hangers were within 100 feet of the runway.

Good Evening Mike,

The maneuver you describe was commonly discussed in hangar flying sessions during
W.W.II, specifically for use with the DC-3 and C-46. When I started flying the DC-3
in 1951, it was still considered a viable technique to have in one’s bag of tricks.
I never saw the maneuver performed, but do believe I read of it being used by a DC-4
pilot once. I think it was in Alaska, but am not sure.
The major condition that most agreed was required for this to be safely done was a very
slick runway surface so that excessive side loads would not be encountered.
There is more than one way to skin that cat!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990717 211445 msg06150.tex]

70
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

Operational Procedures
Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:11:52

In a message dated 2/26/01 11:06:18 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:
sort of thinking that produced the ”war emergency training” of WWII, but
I/we taught/teach a technique that seems to work well for the majority of
pilots. Individuals may of course choose to expand their techniques.
Good Morning Tom,
No argument at all!
I often end up with less than full flap on approach in many aircraft.
It All Depends!
On some airplanes during some conditions the use of full flap on the approach can be
beneficial, but it is rarely required.
I just wanted to point out that retracting the flaps will not always result in a loss of
performance. That is one of the Old Wives Tales that I like to refute.
Teaching a procedure that works for the folks and the equipment involved is not neces-
sarily catering to the ”war time expediency” brand of training, provided the students
are not given inaccurate information as to the reasons behind adopting the procedure
that is recommended.
Many of the procedures which were utilized in the everyday operations of the airline
for which I worked, did not give us the absolute most optimum performance that was
available, but they were procedures which were easy for the average crew member to
remember and use. Those procedures were then demonstrated to the FAA. After the
FAA gave their blessing, performance numbers were developed while using those mod-
ified procedures and the new performance numbers were the ones we used to routinely
operate the airline.
Every now and then, a situation would develop where there was a need to get a little more
performance out of the airplane than the ”Canned” numbers would allow. When that
happened, a special procedure was adopted, approved and used for just that particular
problem. Needless to say, such things only happened when there was a major economic
advantage to be gained.
An example would be takeoff weights at Denver in the summer time for La Belle Car-
avelle. On a hot day, we couldn’t carry enough fuel to make Chicago with enough folks
on board to make the trip worthwhile and still meet the stock accelerate/stop distances
required after an engine failure.
Since the runway at DEN was relatively long, it was reasoned that the airplane could
go to a speed well above the standard V1 speed and still stop on the runway remaining.

71
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

We could use less flap and be able to get a better rate of climb once airborne than with
the standard flap in the event we had to shut one down.
Not only that, but by going to a higher speed on the ground than was optimum for the
flap configuration we used for takeoff, we could lose an engine and use the extra speed
to maintain altitude while the gear retracted. By the time the gear was up the speed
would be near the speed required for the configuration we had and away we would go!
V1 would be well above V2.
The upshot was that we had a procedure called the Special Two Degree (or something
near that, I don’t remember exactly) Flap Takeoff At Denver Procedure.
The limiting factor was the approved tire speed. Our tires had a speed limit which was
either 180 mph or 180 knots, I think it was mph, but don’t remember that for sure
either.
We would go into a chart and determine the airspeed at which we would have a ground
speed of 180 considering the temperature and the forecast wind. I believe we used
something like half the forecast wind for planning purposes.
From there we would determine the new V1 to be used. That then led us to another
table which told us how heavy we could be and still be able to get the gear up in time
to meet the required climb gradient with the reduced flap and one engine shut down.
Similar, though not as extreme procedures, were developed for reduced flap takeoffs in
other equipment as well, but none were as dramatic as those used for the Caravelle.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010226 131152 msg04656.tex]

72
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

Required Equipment for IFR Flight

Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:54:15

Good Morning All,

There has been a ton of information on this subject already and John Whithead had
an early explanation that covered the legal requirements quite well so I wasn’t going to
comment further until Eric Poole pulled my chain!
From Eric Poole:

”This is one of any number of reasons why I have to disagree with Old Bob
when he says you can replace so much other stuff with a GPS.”

My position is one of educating the group as to what can be done, not what any indi-
vidual should do.
All that is required for IFR flight in the United States National Airspace System is
a navigation device pertinent to the route to be flown and communications capability
along that route.
That leaves it up to we aviators to determine what we need for any individual flight.
For most IFR flight in the lower fortyeight, one VOR will do the job for navigation and
one 720 channel comm will suffice. As a practical matter, many fewer channels would
likely work as the controllers are quite cooperative in assigning a frequency which you
have, but the FEDs have stated that they MAY assign any of the frequencies of the 720.
The other forty frequencies in your 760 channel set are currently used for ”Company”
uses.
If I were planning an IFR flight with nothing more than the bare minimum equipment
available, I would operate so as to always have a VFR alternate. Getting by with just
a VOR would restrict the number of airports that I could use for a destination but
would cause few problems enroute except if I wanted to fly in those areas which require
a transponder.
If I add a transponder there is almost nowhere in the US that I could not fly IFR.
My destination would not even have to have a VOR approach provided that I name an
alternate that does have one which I could execute with the single VOR.
Now let’s look at this a little further. If I add an ADF, DME, ILS, and a GPS, I could
add the capability of arriving at my non VOR equipped destination when somewhat less
than VFR conditions prevail.
Just what capability I would have would be dependent on just how much of the equip-
ment installed in my aircraft was working.
How many flights do any of us make where the weather is less than VFR (1000/3) at
our destinations?

73
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

I am sure that, for my operation, I could complete at least 95 percent of them as planned
with nothing but a single VOR! Your mileage may vary.
If you wish to add a little more IFR flexibility, you can add more capability per dollar
by adding one IFR approach approved GPS than with any other single expenditure for
new equipment. What you can do on the used market is dependent on your scrounging
ability!
I don’t think you have ever seen me recommend that anyone take out any equipment
from their aircraft that is still operating and/or provides a unique service to their cir-
cumstance. As an example, if you fly regularly to Canada or South America, you might
want to have an ADF. It is required for IFR flight in northern Canada and is handy
down south. If you plan to fly in those areas only VFR, it is a different ball game.
The GPS is a legal and safe substitute for the ADF and DME in the US National Air
Space. It does require a current datacard to be used for that purpose.
If you are planning a flight to Greater Podunk International with a non GPS equipped
aircraft and all of the approaches there require the use of a DME, what do you do if the
DME quits?
Well, it depends!
If the weather is above the local vectoring minima, advise the FEDs and press on! If
you can’t get visual by the vectoring minima, you divert to your alternate.
The same thing goes for me if I am charging along in my single VOR, single GPS
machine. If the GPS quits, or my card is out of date considering my approved airplane
flight manual supplement, I either get visual at the minimum vectoring altitude or go
to my alternate. At least ninety five percent of the time, my flight wouldn’t be affected
in any way!
Many others have commented on the practicality of flight with an out of date datacard.
It would take a very unusual combination of circumstances to make me cancel a trip
due to an out of date card.
John Galt and others have commented on the poor performance of Jeppesen and the
need for another competitive source.
It is my not so humble opinion that Jeppesen service has been gong downhill for several
years.
Competition would be nice!
So far, the competitive products that I have looked at did not provide a service that I
felt was cheap enough to put up with the lower quality product.
John feels that Jepp has a monopoly on the navdata card service. That may be so, but
it is a natural monopoly in that no one else seems to want to provide the service!

74
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

There is nothing to stop anyone from entering the field. Why don’t some of you young
whippersnappers take up the gauntlet and provide that competitive service?
Considering the low number of cards currently purchased by we users, I doubt if it is a
money maker for Jepp!
Happy Skies,
Old Coot Bob
[ARTICLES/20000105 115415 msg00249.tex]

75
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Routing/Clearences and Aircraft Heading

Sat, 26 Aug 2000 10:19:58

In a message dated 8/26/00 8:09:04 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:
Not having the experience most on this list have, I have been filing ”A”
flight plans using published sids,stars and airways. So far I have not em-
barrassed my self too bad grin
bob stephens
Good Morning Bob,
It sounds to me as though you are doing just fine!
Keep up the way you have been doing things and gradually add direct requests as you
gain experience with the system. In most cases, the controllers actually prefer that you
fly random routes. It helps the overall system work more efficiently.
I use my GPS as the primary source of navigational information almost all of the time.
Most often, I will use the DUATS generated low altitude airways when I file, but I list
my flight as a /G. I find that downline direct clearances are generally offered before I
even ask for them. I like to have a flightplan on file that is consistent with the FAA
preferred routings plan. While they are not heavily used all of the time in all parts of
the country, it gives me a written plan to default to should my equipment fail or the
GPS system be deactivated for some reason.
On longer flights, I will often have a specific routing other than a direct course that I
would like to fly for operational reasons. That may be due to a desired pressure pattern
flight, weather avoidance, terrain considerations or merely for sightseeing. In any case, I
will choose points along that route to have handy when I do request direct routings other
than the low altitude airway which I have filed. I find that it is sometimes advantageous
to evaluate how many times a direct route will go in and out of a particular center
airspace when flying along the edge of center boundary. I try to make my routing one
which will take a minimum amount of coordination between two adjoining centers or
sectors.
If I am flying an airplane that does not have an approved IFR GPS installed, I file the
slash letter that is appropriate for the equipment that is installed in the airplane. No
cheating of any kind.
It does sometimes help to add in the remarks section that you have a VFR GPS or Loran
aboard. Or you could just say that you have direct flight capability. Unfortunately, all
of those remarks do not always make it to the controller who is handling your flight.
Procedures for handling the remarks vary from center to center and even vary among
the controllers who are transferring the data.
I do have a problem with using the wording ’heading’ for any other purpose than to

76
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

describe the way you are pointing the flying machine.

A line between two points is a course, not a heading. The course made good is a track,
not a heading.
If the controller assigns me a heading, I will hold that heading until I am cleared to do
otherwise. To do anything else could compromise the controllers planned spacing. If
you adjust the heading to make good a desired track, you are not complying with the
controllers instructions. If the controller tells you to maintain a heading until able to
proceed direct, then you can adjust the heading to maintain a track which will follow
your course to the next waypoint as soon as you have the waypoint loaded and checked
for reasonableness. It is appropriate to advise the controller when your are capable of,
and do decide to, proceed direct rather than fly the heading originally assigned.
It is not unusual to have a controller ask what my heading will be to a waypoint to
which I have requested a direct routing. I always answer with the statement that my
INITIAL heading will be XXX.
The heading to maintain a track will change not only with speed and wind, but with
magnetic variation and northerly (in this hemisphere) convergence errors.
The magnetic delineation of a course will vary along that direct course due to variation
and divergence factors.
Be careful how you use the term heading and question the controller as to their meaning
when they use the term. If you wish to make some remark in the flight plan document
when you file concerning a course you intend to fly, be sure to delineate it as a course
and not as a heading.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000826 101958 msg12608.tex]

77
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Routing/Clearences and Aircraft Heading

Sat, 27 Jan 2001 20:44:31

In a message dated 1/27/01 6:25:08 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:
Interesting. I always reply with course rather than heading. Which the
controller knows anyway from what you are saying. Sort of defeats the
exercise I guess. Maybe I should reply, Course 066, heading 09? g
Interesting, I was thinking the same thing today on my flight back home.
The winds were pretty strong. I just read about controllers trying to figure
out the winds in order to give you headings in this months IFR (which I
highly recommend). The controller in Cincy turned me a couple of times
and I used the GPS to cross reference the compass and DG. I ended up
settling on the ground track. Now, my question, am I messing with the
controller here?? What do you think Scott?
Dana Overall Richmond, KY
Good Evening Dana and All,
I guess you all know my feelings about the legality of flying direct via the controllers
authority while navigating via IFR or VFR GPS, but there is a comment I would like
to add to the discussion.
We all tend to be a little loose with our definitions. When you are asking for, or
accepting, a clearance from an Air Traffic Controller, it is important to make sure that
you are both on the same wavelength.
The words Heading and Course have very different and distinct meanings
Should the controller tell you to maintain a heading of 270 degrees for vectors to Podunk
City, the heading is to be held until you hear otherwise. I think we will all agree on
that.
If the controller clears you direct to Podunk City and asks what your heading will be,
there is some room for confusion. My answer to that question is always some version of
the following. ”Bonanza N20318 is proceeding direct to Podunk City. My initial heading
will be 250 degrees to track 270 which is the current course to Podunk City.”
Unless you are directly north or south of your destination and there is no change in
variation along your course, the course angle will change as you fly along the great circle
from your present position to Podunk City. Of course, the heading required to hold
that course will change not only due to convergence errors and magnetic variation, but
because of changes in wind and speed.
If the controller tells you to take up a heading of 270 and proceed direct to Podunk City
when able, you are cleared to determine the track to Podunk City from your present

78
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

position and change the heading to follow that track as soon as you have the information
available.
If you request a heading of 270 to Podunk City, what is it that you want to do? Are
you asking that you be allowed to hold a heading of 270 degrees? If that is so, how long
do you intend to hold that heading?
If a controller told me to take up a heading of 270 degrees and proceed direct to Podunk
City, I would consider that to be an improper clearance because I would have been asked
to do two conflicting things. That would elicit a query from me to ascertain precisely
what he wanted me to do. It might take this form. ”Ok, Bonanza N20318 is cleared
direct to Podunk City, I can proceed direct at this time. Do you need me to hold that
270 for traffic or can I proceed direct now.”
There are two basic rules, both of equal importance. Always tell the truth. Make sure
you and the controller both have the same interpretation of what you are expected to
do.
If in doubt, ASK!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010127 204431 msg02018.tex]

79
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

T&B vs. Turn Coordinator

Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:05:44

In a message dated 9/18/00 2:41:01 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

To me the TC made it simple because I could see what the wings were
doing, I didn’t have to watch a wiggling stick and convert that to wing
attitude. The ball was still telling me the information I need as to weather
I am skidding or slipping.

Good Afternoon Joe,

I am sure you are comfortable with what you are doing or you wouldn’t be doing it.
Just remember that the Turn Coordinator does NOT tell you what the wing is doing.
It will NOT tell you if they are level or not.
If the airplane is in perfect rig, perfect trim and if it is not turning, the wings are likely
to be level, but if there is some force which makes it either desirable or necessary to fly
other than with the wings level, the TC will not show the true position of the wing.
All it is capable of determining is if the airplane is rolling or yawing. If the airplane
yaws, the TC will show the wing as being down whether it is or not. If the airplane rolls
it will show exactly the same indication as it would if the aircraft yaws.
There is absolutely no difference in an indication of a roll or a yaw on the TC.
The TC will show roll or yaw, but it will NOT show wing position.
I realize you are currently operating a single engine airplane, but I would like to mention
a case in which the TC would show the wings as level and yet they would not be so.
If you are flying a twin, single engine, and have determined that the best performance
in your current configuration is with the dead engine carried five degrees high, the TC
would show wings level anytime that the aircraft is not turning or rolling. If you were
flying straight ahead, the wing was five degrees high and the airplane was not wobbling
from side to side, the TC would show a wings level indication.
The method you are using to determine whether or not the wings are level is to watch
your TC until it shows no yaw or roll and then you assume that the wings are level. In
most cases, that will be a reasonable assumption, but it does not emphasize what I feel
is the most important feature of maintaining complete control of the aircraft.
That is: Stop the turn and you will have the best chance of surviving long enough to
sort things out.
The vast majority of us will never be in that panic state where we are not sure which way
is up. We train and practice regularly to assure that we don’t get in such a predicament.
I trust that you never will and I certainly hope that I never will, but it does happen
and I am sure that all of those to whom it has happened felt that it couldn’t happen to

80
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

them.
There have been very few accident reports that I have read where I had not made a
similar mistake, but in more favorable circumstances. I hope if there is one thing I have
learned is that if it can happen to anyone, it can happen to me.
No one needs to know how to make a crosswind landing if he or she can be certain that
they never have to land in a crosswind.
No one needs to be able to determine which instrument has failed if they never have an
instrument failure.
No one needs to consider how they will handle panic if they never encounter panic.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000918 180544 msg13683.tex]

81
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Tail Wiggle
Mon, 26 Jan 1998 18:05:18

Good Evening Ernie,

In a message dated 98-01-26 16:06:51 EST, you write:

Feet come off the floor on the decent for manuevering, but I don’t use
much rudder input to keep the ball centered until I get up to or greater
than standard rate turn banks.

Yeh, I know I am something of a nut on using the rudder but I really do think it helps
dampen any swinging tendencies and that aileron does just the opposite, it makes the
wiggle worse. I always figured that on most airplanes, not just the Bonanza series, that
keeping my feet on the rudder pedals makes the rudder a fixed surface and therefore
doubles the amount of vertical surface that is dampening any yaw from whatever source.
We stopped to see Jim Younkin at his shop in Springdale Arkansas a little over a year
ago and he told us he had developed a yaw damper for his Mr. Mulligan. Since he was
the brains behind the Century autopilots, I expected to see an electronic marvel on the
aircraft. What he showed us was a device that merely held the rudder from moving
through a unit with adjustable tension. He could release it at will or adjust the tension
so he could override it as necessary. He said it made a tremendous difference in the
stability of the airplane. The cost was nil, just some scrap aluminum and a couple of
pieces of leather held together with a few screws and bolts.
He told us he was planning on using the same system on his Mullicoupe.
I don’t pretend to be any better at dampening the swings than the next guy but I have
had many friends comment that my Bonanza does not seem to swing as do most other
Bonanzas that they have ridden in.
I think the spring interconnect on the Beech provides something of what Jim has done,
but input from the aileron to pick up a wing causes drag which acerbates the yaw and
makes things enough worse that even the additional stability gained from the somewhat
stiffer ruddervators or rudder can’t overcome the additional yaw caused by the aileron
input.
In the late forties there was a little mimeographed sheet of instructions that was handed
out to Bonanza salespersons concerning methods of alleviating any yaw which might
develop in choppy air. It was suggested that the airplane be flown using just a little bit
of cross control, a little bit of rudder and a little bit of opposite aileron.
The theory was that such a procedure would create a little drag and stop the wiggle the
way a drogue line stabilizes a boat. I think the improvement was just from not letting
the ruddervators move!!
That is what I have taught for the last fortyfive years and those who I am able to
convince seem to make it work.

82
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

What say you?

Bob
[ARTICLES/19980126 180518 msg00532.tex]

83
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Tail Wiggle
Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:19:34

Good Morning Bill,

In a message dated 98-01-27 00:58:44 EST, you write:

If one applied this thinking to the sides of the fuselage, then there might
be a 3-9” range through with the tailcone could oscillate before forces rise
and push the fuselage back toward streamline.
Thoughts all you aerodynamicists out there?

I certainly am not an aerodynamicist BUT! I have always thought the wiggle on the
Bonanza is primarily a function of the slab sided fuselage. It seems that every slabsided
airplane I have ever flown has the same characteristics only with varying periods of
oscillation. It certainly could be that there is an area of displacement that the fuselage
could wiggle in before the lift characteristics made the nose swing the other way, but
the action of the Beech airplanes seems to be almost instantaneous.
One airplane that I have noted would fly comfortably sideways is the Cessna 195. You
can cross control a little bit and the thing will just sit there. Without any change of
trim, move it over to a small cross control in the other direction and it will sit at that
position. The ball can be a sixteenth of an inch or more out of the center without the
airplane wanting to straighten itself out.
The other factor is the taper of the wing. The forward moving wing increases it’s lift
in relation to the aft moving wing and that of course increases the drag. That might
cause the extreme stability of the Beechcraft even if there was a breakout effect on the
fuselage.
It has always seemed to me that a Bonanza (even one out of trim) will exhibit an
immediate desire to get back to it’s trimmed condition if displaced. If there were a dead
area with slight fuselage yaw, wouldn’t the airplane just sit there like the 195?
The 195 has some taper to the wing also, but doesn’t seem to exhibit the same stability.
I feel that the Bonanza does not wiggle due to any lack of stability but due to the
extreme inherent stability of the design with relatively light damping.
I do feel that if I spend almost all of my attention to dampening the yaw I can do slightly
better than just holding the rudders from moving.
The procedure I use and have taught to others with varying success, is to pick only one
side to work with, not both. If the nose swings to the RIGHT, I apply a small amount
of RIGHT rudder. It is going to start back on it’s own due to the extreme stability of
the design. All it needs is a little dampening of the return swing. Along with the rudder
I apply a little left aileron to reduce the wing drop from the nose swinging to the right.
As the nose returns to neutral the pressures are released.

84
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

If the nose swings to the left I wait for it to go to the right and then correct as before.
I may well be kidding myself that it works, but it seems to me it helps. Just holding
the rudders from moving and resisting the temptation to use the aileron seems to work
almost as well and is a lot easier!
I have to put in a small aside here. (Well maybe not so small!)
In the spring of 1968 I was checking out as a Boeing 720 captain and the company I
worked for was recommending a yaw damping procedure that was different than the
one Boeing used. Our company procedure was to use a whole lot of control wheel
input so as to get major spoiler input with a relatively small aileron effect. The Boeing
recommendation was the same as the one I had been teaching my Bonanza students
only the motion was slow enough that it was relatively easy to work both sides.
The company approved of either, but my instructor was a believer of the company
method and was pushing me to use it. During my check ride with the FEDs I was given
the unusual attitude recovery. The instructor really got the old Boeing wiggling. I used
the normal Bonanza technique and it stopped in one oscillation. The instructor said
I must have been peeking and said to make sure my head was down and eyes closed
and not to peek and he really worked at wiggling the old cow around and did several
iterations to get my senses confused. When I was given the airplane, same deal, stopped
in one oscillation. You could tell the instructor was getting peeved. Finally the FAA
check pilot who I had never met before and who had no idea of my background, spoke up
and said: ”You can spot those Bonanza pilots every time, they never have any problem
with swept wing yaw.” I found out later that the inspector had a Bonanza himself and
he used and taught the same technique as do I.
Before I leave this I must mention that Boeing changed it’s mind and went to the
spoiler method as the recommended recovery technique the same as my company did.
The problem was that if one hit the wrong rudder during the recovery effort the airplane
had a tendency to roll on it’s back and sling off an engine or two. The spoiler recovery
technique didn’t work as well but was more forgiving. Doesn’t seem to be a problem
with the Bonanza.
I have relatively little experience with different electronic yaw dampers. I installed one
on my airplane about eight years ago and have flown with it some 1200 hours. Seems to
work fine. When I installed it, I noted with dismay that if the nose swings to the right,
the yaw damper inputs left rudder. I called the factory to see if this was the way it was
designed and was told yes that is what they intended.
After test flying the installation I did feel that it worked OK. I timed the rudder inputs
and found that the input is slow enough that the rudder isn’t effective until the nose
has swung back the other way. In other words, it is one half swing behind what I would
be doing were I flying it by hand (or FOOT?).
Maybe all it is really doing is holding the ruddervators from swinging? In any case, it
works! (Jim Younkins deal is a LOT cheaper).

85
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Didn’t someone say that one experiment is worth a thousand theories?

What say all of you?
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980127 091934 msg00545.tex]

86
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

Tail Wiggle
Sat, 18 Sep 1999 10:53:57

In a message dated 9/18/99 7:54:00 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I was taught that manual yaw dampening of a Bonanza can be accomplished

by putting one’ s foot over both pedals. I have found this technique works
pretty good, until my foot begins to tire.
Do you know of any other techniques for manual yaw dampening?

Good Morning Bob,

The method you have been taught is one that works well.
The first thing to consider is, ”why does the nose wiggle?”
The Bonanza has a tapered wing and a slab sided fuselage. These two characteristics
provide a very strong stabilizing input when the aircraft is displaced from straight flight,
so strong that the nose generally will swing beyond straight ahead when the natural
directional stability of the airframe corrects for any adverse displacement.
The more vertical component there is to the tail feathers, the more that correction effect
will be dampened.
Forget the V tail for a minute and just think about one of those funny looking inverted
T tails that are mounted on so many of the worlds aircraft. Let’s also eliminate the
spring interconnect of the controls from our thoughts.
If the tail of the aircraft is displaced from the faired position and the rudder is free
to swing, there will be little or no stabilizing effect from the rudder. If the rudder
comprises half of the area of the vertical surface there will be approximately half as
much stabilizing effect with a free swinging rudder as there would be if the rudder were
held in a fixed position.
Just fasten the rudder pedals so that they can’t move, and the dampening effect of the
tail surfaces is increased dramatically.
Next, consider the aileron independently.
If the nose should make an adverse swing to the right and left aileron is input as an effort
to correct that swing, the adverse yaw induced by the differential action of the aileron
will initially add a force that will cause the nose to be displaced to the right for an even
longer amount of time and add to the adverse wiggle. Then, as the nose does respond
to the force of the taper wing and slab sided fuselage, if the aileron is placed to neutral,
the adverse yaw which had swung the nose further to the right will be eliminated and
the nose will swing even harder to the left than it would have had no aileron been input.
Were right aileron input at that time, the wiggle would be made even worse.

87
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

So the easiest way to reduce any undesired wiggle is to lock the rudder pedals and keep
your hands off the aileron!
If just that were done, we would have many fewer upchuckers in seats 5 & 6!
Now, if your psych is such that you just have to be involved in the control of the
aircraft, there are some things that can be done to improve slightly on the technique of
just locking it up and leaving it alone.
When the Bonanza was first delivered, there was a little sheet of suggested demo tech-
niques that was distributed by Beechcraft to their dealers. In that document it was
suggested that the aircraft be flown slightly cross controlled during flight in turbulent
air, that is hold a little right aileron and a little left rudder or vice versa.
That was described as providing a little drag which would stabilize the flight in the same
manner as would trailing a drogue from a boat. Note that their suggestion was to hold
that input solid, and not to attempt corrections!
If you want to be involved even more, pick one way or the other to work on. That is,
decide to correct swings to one side and not the other. Let us say we will attempt to
dampen any swing of the nose to the right, but we will ignore the swings to the left.
When the nose goes to the right, input a little right rudder. We already know that
the natural stability of the airframe is going to bring it back to the left, so all that is
required of us is to slow down that leftward swing by a small judicious application of
right rudder.
That small right rudder input may drop the right wing just a bit, should a little left
aileron be input to keep the wing from dropping excessively, fine, that will add a small
additional right turning force which will help dampen the return swing to the left.
The method described in the last few paragraphs is exactly how the current crop of
electronic yaw dampers control the aircraft except they don’t add the little bit of aileron.
(That isn’t one hundred percent true, as a little bit of improper aileron force might be
applied by the interconnection of the controls, but if one is hand flying the aircraft
the undesired input from the yaw damper will likely be resisted by the pilot and if the
autopilot is connected, that undesirable input will be countered by the roll servo.)
The timing of the input to the rudder servo is such that when the nose is displaced to
the right, a LEFT rudder input is commanded, BUT, the yaw damper is slow enough
to react such that the rudder is not effective until the nose has swung back to the left
and the left swing return, not the right one which initiated the input, is dampened by
the action of the yaw damper!
The yaw damper is thus one half wiggle behind the method suggested earlier in this
lengthy dissertation!
Trust me!! The yaw damper will do a better job than even the most attentive pilot the
vast majority of the time.

88
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

Nevertheless, just placing your feet on the rudder pedals and holding them still while
resisting any urge to input aileron will provide almost as good a ride as will the electronic
yaw damper and it is a whole lot cheaper!
The absolutely worst advice that can ever be given to any pilot is for them to fly the
Bonanza with their feet on the floor and let the interconnect take care of the rudder.
If a pilot is to use only one of those two controls, aileron or rudder, it would be best if
it was only the rudder.
The wiggle characteristic is not limited to aircraft equipped with V tails. There were
some independent evaluations done by somebody a few years ago which showed that
the model 33 had slightly better dampening characteristics than the 35 but that the 36
wiggle was almost the same as the 35. There is more vertical component to the 33 than
to the 35 tail. The 36 has as much vertical component as the 33. The tail is the same
distance from the wing, but the propellor is ten inches further forward so it provides a
destabilizing effect that results in wiggle characteristics approximately equal to a late
model 35. The early 35s had less surface area mounted at a slightly different angle and
therefore slightly less vertical component.
I don’t have documentation of this testing and so can’t point to an authoritative source.
I am hoping that one or more of the participants to this list are aware of that source
and will let us all know where it is!
Happy (hopefully, wiggle free) Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990918 105357 msg08602.tex]

89
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Tail Wiggle
Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:16:11

In a message dated 9/26/00 3:18:15 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

One of the characteristics of this aircraft that I am not wild about is it’s
tendency to yaw in turbulence. Much of this yaw can be taken out by
putting pressure on both rudder pedals.

Good Evening David,

We would like to welcome you and your wife to the list.
I would hope that you are a member of the American Bonanza Society. It certainly
isn’t required, but there are many benefits of such membership to a Bonanza owner. If
you have nor already done so, it would also be a good idea to get the CD that ABS
offers which contains all of the newsletters ever issued and a whole lot more information
pertinent to the operation and maintenance of your Bonanza.
There have been many conversations on this forum concerning the Bonanza wiggle. Your
method of holding the rudder pedals from moving helps a lot. There are other things
that can be done as well.
The main thing is to think heading, not roll, and use the rudders to hold a heading, not
the aileron. Finally, if the nose yaws to the right, DON’T give it left rudder to bring it
back. The Bonanza wiggle is a function of the extreme stability built into the airplane.
It will bring the nose back on it’s own. In fact, it will bring the nose back too fast and
your reaction should be to add a little right rudder to dampen the return swing.
Got that? If the nose swings to the right, use a little right rudder to dampen it’s inherent
return. Be sure to avoid any aileron input and ninety percent of the wiggle will be gone.
Having said that, I do have an S-Tec yaw damper and find it quite useful. It isn’t any
better, and maybe not as good, as a well schooled Bonanza pilot, but it never gets tired
or distracted and does a very good job. The trouble is that it is rather expensive and it
does add weight where the Bonanza does not need it!
Once again, welcome aboard!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/20000926 201611 msg14080.tex]

90
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

Tail Wiggle
Thu, 16 Nov 2000 10:09:55

In a message dated 11/16/00 7:25:38 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

They both have the ”fishtail” which can be controlled by holding my feet
on the rudders. But the V35B definitely seems to fishtail more. Now the
F33 is longer than the C33 but that would improve it, right?

Good Morning Mike,

I haven’t looked up the specifications to see what Beech or Raytheon says is the length of
the C33 or the F33, but I am confident that the only differences in length between the two
has to do with appendages to the airframe. Such things as spinners and tailcones. The
length of the airframe itself is the same for all of the 35 and 33 models from 1947 on to
the bitter end. The top of the swept back rudder on the 33 series extends back somewhat
further than do the tail feathers on the ”real” Bonanzas making any representative 33
longer than any similar appendage equipped 35.
The Model 36 Stretched Debbie is ten inches longer in the airframe, but that distance is
all forward of the wing and since it sticks the nose out further, it is a destabilizing factor.
The distance from the wing to the rearmost point of the fuselage structure, without a
tailcone and discounting rudder overhang, is the same as serial D-1 delivered in 1947.
I don’t have any scientific data to back up my opinion and I am prejudiced toward the
real Bonanza, but my perception has been that the 35s do have a wiggle if the pilot
tends to fly with his/her feet on the floor instead of those little metal things that clutter
up the front floor.
The 33s have the same wiggle, but I feel it is slightly dampened as compared to the
35s. The Stretch Debbie seems to me to wiggle about the same as a Bonanza, but at a
slightly lower frequency.
All three aircraft, the Bonanza, Debonair and Stretch Debbie are slabsided and have
tapered leading edges on the wings. Those characteristics make the airplane so direc-
tionally stable that when the nose is displaced in yaw, for whatever reason, the effect
of that highly directionally stable force will yaw the aircraft back so fast that it swings
beyond neutral. That is the source of the wiggle. It can be dampened by adding more
vertical surface or by actively opposing the adverse yaw.
More vertical surface can easily be added to all of the aircraft by merely holding the
rudder pedals from moving. That effectively allows more fixed vertical surface to oppose
the wiggle.
Dynamically activating the rudder to oppose the swing and stop the wiggle is much
more complicated and can easily deteriorate into a bad pilot induced oscillation.
The electronic yaw dampers that are available do an admirable job of damping the

91
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

wiggle, but are expensive and add considerable weight.

I have described my method of manual yaw damping many times before, so I won’t
repeat it here. Just remember that it can be minimized by keeping the rudder from
moving and resisting the urge to try to fly the airplane with aileron. If only one of the
two, rudder or aileron, is to be used, it should be the rudder, NOT the aileron.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001116 100955 msg16327.tex]

92
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

Touch & Go’s

Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:58:52

In a message dated 10/16/00 7:10:08 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

On sufficiently long runways, when the pilot has landed without using too
much runway, and when there is no traffic behind me to rush the reconfig-
uration, I have no problem with stop-and-goes as a means of speeding up
the training process.

Good Morning Tom and All,

First, just a small comment on the above paragraph. I assume you meant for the above
technique to be used at a tower controlled field.
Since I am one of those throwbacks who still regularly operates a no radio equipped
airplane, I like to emphasize that any operations at a non tower controlled airport
should be conducted with the thought that there might well be traffic of which you are
not aware regardless of your diligent and correct use of the Common Traffic Advisory
Frequency!
As I read through this weeks accumulated messages, I note that the Touch and Go
controversy has once again reared it’s ugly head.
I thought we beat that to death a year or more ago!
As you know, I am in your camp when we discuss touch and go operations. I see
absolutely no training benefit for using the technique.
For primary or transition training where the student is attempting to assimilate atti-
tudes, closure rates, pattern planning, flares and all of the multitude of little things that
make for a good approach and landing, I feel that the landing should be completed, the
aircraft should be taken clear of the runway and the preceding approach and touchdown
debriefed either by the pilot him/herself when solo or by the instructor when one is
aboard.
It has been my experience that more actual beneficial training will occur per hour of
time spent when doing it that way than when the emphasis is on how many landings
can be performed per hour.
When the only reason for making the landings is to comply with the rather useless
FAA requirement of three bounces before carrying passengers, there could be some
justification, provided that the qualifying pilot really does not need the training or the
practice landing.
Even if that is the case, it has been my experience, when I was operating a fleet of
training aircraft, that the engines lasted longer and had fewer cylinder problems once
we had eliminated the routine use of touch and go landing from our operation.

93
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

The flight training time to train to proficiency did not increase at all. In fact, there
was some evidence that the students were achieving proficiency in less time even though
fewer landings were involved. The time spent contemplating the last arrival and the
next departure more than made up for the fewer landings per hour.
I never do a touch and go if there is any other practical way of handling the situation.
I do think there is benefit in training to make an aborted approach, but that is whole
different subject!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001016 095852 msg14901.tex]

94
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

Touch and Go’s

Fri, 27 Aug 1999 20:15:46

In a message dated 8/27/99 7:22:59 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Personally (opening myself up for criticism, to be sure), I do not do touch-

and-goes with students in retractable gear airplanes. This is the main
reason I do not.

Good Evening Tom,

For what it’s worth, I don’t do touch and goes in ANY airplanes, J-3s included. I started
that policy when I was running a 141 school and we were not getting our Musketeers
anywhere near TBO.
After establishing the no touch and go policy, we easily made TBO with all of our
trainers.
Some of the students and instructors complained at first, but after a few months, most
all agreed that the time spent during the taxi back to evaluate the last time around the
field was worth more than the extra landing or two per hour that could be gained from
a T&G.
If anything, the students progressed faster after we eliminated the touch and goes.
Been doing it that way for at least twenty-five years now. Works great!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990827 201546 msg07415.tex]

95
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Touch and Go’s

Sat, 28 Aug 1999 02:03:59

In a message dated 8/27/99 8:40:04 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Why was that?? A take-off is a take-off, so why would the engine care
whether there was a longer pause for the taxi back vs the touch n go?

I don’t really know, but it worked! I think it was because the engine had a chance to
stabilize at a warmer temperature while taxiing back than it had during the glide just
before landing. That is merely conjecture on my part though. We still did training for
go arounds and that has to be the worst case of all for the engines, from a cooled down
glide immediately to takeoff power. The number of go-arounds was very few in relation
to the number of normal landings and I guess that made the difference.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990828 020359 msg07433.tex]

96
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.2. AIRMAN-MISC

Use of Flaps
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 16:37:54

In a message dated 1/27/00 12:58:55 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:
A former BPPP instructor, Pat Groves, advised me to extend the flaps to
half or more if I were going to maneuver below 90 kts in my F33A. In other
words, don’t go below 90 kts without some flaps.
Bob Briggs
Good Evening Bob,
If you read what I wrote earlier, you will find my recommendation. I would determine the
maneuvering speed for the weight that exists by using 150 percent of the stalling speed.
That is a very conservative maneuvering speed. Some folks recommend maneuvering
speeds as low as 130 percent of stalling speed. For most Bonanzas most of the time, even
clean, the airplane would be safe at 90 knots. Some of the heavier 36s would require
some flap to maintain the 150 percent criteria. Your airplane at 3400 pounds has a clean
stalling speed of 53 knots power on and 64 knots power off. I would say that you could
safely maneuver clean most of the time, though I would personally use some flap to fly
below 90 knots.
Don’t just take my or any one elses recommendation. Look up the speeds and determine
the speeds for yourself!
There is a vast difference between light and heavy weights.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000127 163754 msg01872.tex]

97
1.2. AIRMAN-MISC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Use of Flaps
Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:00:06

In a message dated 2/17/00 1:26:09 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Good location imho. In thinking this through setting in the cockpit it

seemed to me that putting them further out makes for less head swiveling
during a critical time of the flight. However the further out the less visible
during night and IMC. Now that you’ve found this location to work for you
I’m going to put mine there.

Good Afternoon John,

I don’t want to mislead you. My current airplane does not have markings on the flap, it
has a gauge. I never bothered to put the markings on airplanes of my own when I did
have aircraft which had originally been so equipped.
That is just where I placed them if folks wanted them!
I rarely use the gauge on the one I have now.
I extend my flaps for takeoff by looking out at the left outboard flap track area.
When the trailing edge of the main portion of the wing lines up with a sight line between
my eyes and the screw in the center of the big round washer located on the flap on each
side of the flap track, the flaps are at ten degrees (my normal takeoff setting).
If I want twenty degrees of flap, I will roll the aileron to full right and position the flap
so that it’s upper surface is parallel to the left aileron upper surface.
On that very rare occasion when I might want to use full flap for takeoff, it’s a no-brainer!
For in-flight flap use, I extend the flaps by feel.
I rarely use anything but full flap except when I am shooting an instrument approach. I
will then extend them so that the combination of drag and desired airspeed will require
a power setting with which I am happy. That is done strictly by evaluation of the
conditions that prevail!
Not much help I guess, but that’s the way I do it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000217 150006 msg03073.tex]

98
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

1.3 AIRMAN-SAFETY

99
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Airframe Ice
Tue, 9 Dec 1997 02:09:31

Hi PeterO
In a message dated 97-12-09 00:55:53 EST, you write:

Does anyone have any icing wisdom they might share (other than ”stay out
of it”) especially those with hot props etc?

Just a couple of comments to start things off.

The condition in which you picked up your ice is a common place for relatively rapid
accretion. Right in the tops of strato cumulus clouds and temperature near freezing.
The last twenty or thirty feet before breaking out on top is often the only ice in the
cloud.
It is one thing of the things to consider if you are in cloud a thousand feet or so below the
tops and picking up a little ice. The old admonition, ”if in doubt climb, you can always
come back down.” may not be the best alternative. One should evaluate whether or
not the climb rate at the altitude necessary to get on top will withstand a considerable
increase in ice accretion rate as you pass through the last hundred feet or so of cloud.
Another thing we were taught in the days of the DC-3 was that we could expect the
most rapid ice build ups during flight with temperatures between 25 and 35 degrees F.
Remember that the ram air heat rise on the OAT probe at Bonanza cruising speed and
OAT near freezing is 5 or more degrees F, so an indicated OAT above freezing may well
mean a free air temp below freezing. When the air is below 25 degrees F, the cloud is
most likely ice crystal and not as likely to cause a rapid build up, though supercooled
water droplets may occur below zero F in some rare cases.
The highest accretion rates are generally in cumulus clouds near mountains or rapidly
rising terrain. It doesn’t last long but can build up very fast! Stratus and stable clouds
tend to have the ice in specific layers and changing altitude will usually help. It is
not unusual to climb out of one cloud deck into another without noticing that you are
doing so unless the temperature is monitored. The ”top of cloud” icing effect may be
encountered during that time.
When flying in the lee of lakes in the midwest, a change of twenty or thirty miles to
parallel the lake shore, but further away will often eliminate the ice. An example: If east
bound trips ahead are icing up over Cleveland, flights that go over Akron will often be
ice free. Sometimes the opposite is true. The most accurate statement that can be made
about ice is that ”ice is where you find it”. Forecasts are notoriously inaccurate and most
icing is rather localized, either vertically or horizontally. The best way to find out about
ice is through the experience of OTHERS. Unfortunately for we Bonanza drivers there
are not a lot of professional pilots flying equipment with similar flight characteristics any
more. When the airlines were flying DC-3s and the big corporations had Twin Beeches
(Model 18s that is) it was a lot easier to get good advice on where and how to handle

100
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

the ice.
If you could locate one of the aviators who flew the Twin Bonanzas around California
picking up canceled checks for the Bank of America, he could probably tell you ten times
as much as one of the kids who has been flying a turboprop or jet around the area for
the last twenty years. There is nothing like the local knowledge gained flying a daily
scheduled operation in a specific area.
Ice is deserving of all the respect it gets. I have never flown airplane that I would fly
in ice continuously. The absolutely best ice hauler was the DC-6, DC-7 series with hot
wings heated by gas fired heaters. The newer jets have rather poor anti-ice capability,
but they have performance so it is not needed. Get out of ice if you can. The general
aviation airplane has a lot of capability but you need to keep a sure way out.
A good grade of ice repellent on the prop does every bit as much good as hot props. BUT
you have to remember to put it on. It does nothing for the wings. It may help getting
the ice off after you have landed, but I have never been able to discern the difference on
airfoil surfaces where I applied the repellent as against those where I didn’t. I use it on
the gear doors and such too, but I don’t know if it is helping or not.
I guess that is enough rambling for this evening. Who’s next?
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19971209 020931 msg02664.tex]

101
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Airframe Ice
Fri, 19 Dec 1997 06:43:14

Good Morning Paul Bruce,

In a message dated 97-12-19 00:25:30 EST, you write:

The plane has no other de-ice other than hot props, and my mechanic
assures me that this will ”Only assure that both engines will be making
full power when we hit the ground” in icing conditions. So I am confused,...

Just a little more about ice protection. I remember a few years ago someone ran some
icing tests on general aviation aircraft and gave some quantitative numbers as to the
effectiveness of various types of anti-ice/de-ice equipment.
I felt at the time and still feel that putting numbers on the result was a little simplistic
as there are too many variables to make direct comparisons.
Having said that, the gist of the report was that having clean props was about twenty
percent of the solution. The report seemed directed toward refuting the notion, which
was rather prevalent at the time, that if you kept the props clean, you could handle the
rest.
The bulk of my experience with booted airplanes was as copilot on DC-3s and DC-4s.
The captains with whom I flew generally felt that the boots weren’t much good and the
results that I observed tended to bear that out.
We tried to wait till the ice was just the right thickness so that it would break off and
fly away and not just stick to the boot as it expanded or become so thick that the boots
wouldn’t expand at all.
Occasionally the ice would build up over the boots such that there was a hollow space
when the boot deflated.
I have since learned that to get maximum effectiveness from boots, the manufacturer
states that Icex (or other boot dressing) should be applied to the boot within a few hours
of the intended operation in icing conditions and that the dressing must be reapplied
after a limited time in precipitation. That was not done on the airline for which I flew.
It is possible that dressing was applied during some maintenance check and I didn’t
know about it, but I rather doubt they were ever dressed.
That undoubtedly had something to do with the relative ineffectiveness we observed.
Modern high pressure and chord wise boots are surely much better and all would work
better with dressing.
All in all we operated the booted airplanes so as to minimize exposure to ice, just as I
do my Bonanza. The DC-3 has a slightly better power to weight ratio and a little higher
wing loading than the Bonanza. It also had supercharged engines so we did a little
better at altitude. I never saw a captain who elected to stay in the ice. We took action

102
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

to get out of the situation including cancelling the trip and ”training” the passengers
(put ’em on the train).
The DC-6 has hot wings and it handles the ice the best of any airplane I ever flew. I
have had six or seven inches of ice on the unprotected portions of the airframe and the
speed would drop off thirty or forty knots but the old hummer would just plug right
along.
We still tried to avoid the ice.
Incidentally the Convair 340 had hot wings also, but didn’t handle ice well. It used heat
exchangers from the engines for wing heat while the DC-6 used gasoline fired heaters.
All of the jet transports that I flew used hot wings, but most did not have as extensive
anti-ice capability as the DC-6/7 series. The 727 had electric heaters on the tail surfaces
at first but they were soon deactivated and we avoided ice. I have forgotten the limits
we were stuck with, but the main way we handled ice was to stay out of it. With the
power available in the jets, it is much easier.
Another major factor that helped us in handling ice was the attitude of the air traffic
controllers. When we asked for another altitude we got it. There was never any inference
that we didn’t belong there!! I don’t mean to chastise the present ATC people, they are
always very helpful and cooperative and traffic is much heavier now, but there was still
a different attitude toward the airliners than I found when flying my Beech.
I guess that’s my rambling for this morning!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19971219 064314 msg02826.tex]

103
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Airframe Ice and OAT Ram Rise

Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:21:47

In a message dated 10/12/00 12:55:23 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

OK, if the temperature rise caused the OAT probe to read +3, would not
the rest of the airplane that received impact air, such as the wing leading
edges, also see the +3 and remain ice free?
Stuart Spindel A&P IA Baron E-55 (IO-550 Powered)

Hi Stuart,
That sounds good, but it doesn’t seem to happen that way!
Ice commonly forms when the OAT is just a little above freezing and it doesn’t seem to
make a difference whether you are in the tops of a cumulus layer or beneath the cloud
flying through freezing rain.
In the DC-3 days, my airline told us to expect the heaviest icing conditions when the
temperatures were between 25 and 35 degrees F indicated OAT. The Ram Rise on the
DC-3 was about the same as a Bonanza and ram rise was the reason we were given.
I am aware that there has been an awful lot of research done in the last fifty years and
the scientists obviously have a lot more data than was available back then, but we did
fly in the conditions conducive to ice all of the time. The numbers seemed to work very
well.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001012 092147 msg14694.tex]

104
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

Backup T&B
Fri, 6 Aug 1999 14:23:39

In a message dated 7/23/99 8:11:16 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

I am still thinking about the venturi idea.

Good Afternoon All,

John Miller, 93 year old current Bonanza pilot, had a venturi rigged up on a board that
would fit in his side vent window. It was plumbed to a turn and bank, not one of those
worthless turn coordinators, and provided him with system which was totally isolated
from all other systems in the aircraft.
For many years I carried a T&B with three nine volt ”B” batteries taped around it in
a manner so that the batteries made a base on which it could rest on top of the glare
shield. Worked like a charm!
The only proviso is that one must take the time to learn how to fly rate instruments,
like us old geezers had to do long, long ago, instead of attitude!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990806 142339 msg06715.tex]

105
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Bird Strike
Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:01:19

In a message dated 97-12-04 13:52:31 EST, Joe Gerardi N8095J wrote:

I think it’s more a matter of fate or bad luck when it happens. We all hope
it won’t happen to us, and chances are it never will...

It would seem that should be true. You might like to know that a local pilot hit two
Mallards on seperate occasions four months apart with his V35B. In both cases the skins
ripped open and the birds ended up intact inside the wing and ahead of the spar. It was
the left wing both times. The first hit right at the stall warning vane and the second
was about a foot outboard. The first was just at level off at around 2000 feet agl and
the second in cruise at a similar altitude.
I have had several bird strikes over the years but the one that was the most significant
was a strike that occurred just west of South Bend Indiana at ten thousand feet. I flew
out of the side of a cloud and was just barely on top after exiting the cloud.
Just as we broke into the clear I hit a bunch of Mallards which had evidently been
circumnavigating the cloud on top of the overcast. (Ya gotta watch that VFR on top)
There was a major loss of power on number three engine and a partial loss on number
one. I feathered number three and monitored number one carefully. After I landed at
ORD the mechanics found two complete birds inside the air intake on the number two
and some damaged pushrod housings on number one. They counted some 135 positive
strikes on the airframe. I don’t know what that type of a strike would do to a Bonanza!
This has nothing to do with this thread, I just thought I would tell the story!!
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19971204 150119 msg02629.tex]

106
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

Closing Door In Flight

Tue, 31 Aug 1999 00:27:24

In a message dated 8/30/99 11:07:30 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Is it indeed *possible* to close the door in flight

Good Evening,
Yes, it is possible, but I don’t recommend it. If you open the left side storm window,
slow down and do a little fish tail you can get the door to swing enough that you can
get it closed. Personally, I am afraid that the door gets bent a little each time you try
it and I prefer to just leave it alone and return to land.
If I had just taken off from someplace where it was not practical to return and it was very
cold and a long way to a suitable landing spot, I might give it a try. If the small trim
piece above the door is removed, you can get a better grip. If things are really serious,
the upholstery at the rear of the door can be loosened as well to provide a handhold on
the structure of the door.
That would obviously be a little difficult to do if you are alone in the airplane.
Incidentally, I used to do door pop training with all Bonanza transitions, but I quit
doing it about thirty years ago because I felt that damage was being done to the door.
Hard to prove, but it seems that the door began to get somewhat harder to close and
didn’t fit as well on airplanes that were used for a lot of training.
I now just discuss it thoroughly and highly recommend that no one close the door except
the pilot flying the airplane, regardless of the qualification of the person in the right seat.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990831 002724 msg07684.tex]

107
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Cranking Down the Gear

Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:53:31

In a message dated 8/31/99 8:39:21 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

It was an interesting experience. Trimmed for about 90 knots, start crank-

ing, crank 10 turns and retrim, 10 turns and retrim, etc. (actually I found
that retrimming after every 10 turns wasn’t really necessary).
The first 38 turns or so were a breeze, then I found that for the next five
or six turns I practically needed a crowbar to make it turn, then the rest
was fine again.

Good Morning Eric,

I guess it depends on you interpretation of hard to crank!
I don’t find the effort unreasonable but I do fly it a little slower, 80 knots or less with
my V35B, 80 mph or less with the older airplanes.
I don’t care for the retrim method. The way that works for me is to get it all trimmed
at the speed I have chosen, then add enough power so it initiates about a 500 fpm climb
at that airspeed. I then start cranking and, as the gear comes out, the aircraft returns
to level flight. As the last few turns do get harder to crank, I slow it down till it is just
above stall. That seems to help.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990831 105331 msg07681.tex]

108
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

Electrical System Failure

Tue, 2 May 2000 11:15:18

In a message dated 5/2/00 9:04:31 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

All that I have read says that if you lose electrical in a Bo best plan is to
drop the gear early while you battery is fresh. The Bo flys just fine with
gear down and you’d rather get to an airport with your gear down and
locked then discover that you don’t have enough juice left to do the job.

Good Morning Allen,

Why waste electrical power on something that you can do manually?
The gear can be cranked down successfully if you are familiar with the procedure and
keep the speed down low while you are doing it. The electrical power that it takes to
put the gear down may be the electrical power that you would need to keep the airplane
under control during instrument flight or for some other flight critical purpose.
While a Bonanza at lower elevations and lightly loaded flies fine with the gear down,
performance can be poor at high altitude and high weights. There is also a possibility
that engine cooling could be a problem. Fuel consumption will be higher and range will
be reduced.
I have had several generator and alternator failures over the years and there has always
been enough power left on arrival at my destination to lower the gear, but I have also
had problems other than electrical supply that have necessitated manual extension of
the gear. It is not a problem.
I think you should put a little more thought to your plan.
As always, it depends!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000502 111518 msg07515.tex]

109
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Electrical System Failure

Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:10:07

In a message dated 6/28/00 1:57:38 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Having two alternators certainly helps. However, one of my electrical fail-

ures was due to the voltage regulator cropping out. Having half a dozen
alternators would not have made a difference.

Good Morning Dirk,

Each alternator has it’s own regulator. They do, however, both feed the same electrical
system! The failure of the primary regulator should only take out the primary alternator,
but an internal short could affect both.
About thirty years ago, we had one of our instrument trainer Beech Musketeers that
incurred a total electrical failure due to one of the straps falling off something (I think it
was the generator, might of been a battery strap, I don’t remember for sure), shorting
against the frame and knocking out the whole shebang. A second generator or alternator
would not have helped in that instance.
It was out on a night cross country and being used by three of our line boys who were
working to gain experience for careers as professional pilots. The weather was generally
three to four hundred feet throughout the area. They had already shot a couple of
approach and landings to different airports when the failure occurred. We made it a
practice to have all of our airplanes which were flown IFR equipped with a separate
antenna to be hooked up to a Bayside portable Comm unit which was carried on all
actual IFR flights. That, along with a flashlight and three heads, helped to save the
day.
The boy sitting in back held the flashlight, the guy in the left seat flew via the vacuum
powered Horizon and DG, and the guy in the right seat got on the Bayside to contact
the FAA.
The center was able to pick them up on primary radar and they were vectored to Chicago
Midway Airport where they shot an ASR approach to about a three hundred foot ceiling.
They had a lot going for them, not the least of which was the multiple crew.
The Musketeer holds sixty gallons of fuel and burns about nine gallons per hour. They
had been out about an hour and a half when the failure occurred, thus had about four
and a half hours of fuel on board.
They probably had enough fuel to reach an area of good VFR weather, but I don’t recall
the details. Having the Bayside and being within easy range of Midway made it fairly
easy to get safely on the ground.
The gyros being powered by a source other than the primary electrical system was

110
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

imperative.
There was a Northeast Airlines Convair that had a complete electrical failure when a
wrench (or something) which had been left in the electrical compartment fell against a
primary buss and wiped out the entire electrical system, including the emergency buss.
The Convair at that time had all electrical instruments and there was nothing left for
the crew to use.
They were on top of an overcast with ceilings of four or five hundred feet near Long
Island Sound when it happened. The sun was approaching the horizon and they did
not have enough fuel to make it to VFR conditions. An attempt was made to let down
through the overcast by noting the position of the sun on the windshield and trying to
hold it there during the down through procedure. It worked long enough so that they
were not in too bad an attitude when they came out the bottom and were able to get the
aircraft right side up without hitting the water of the Sound. They headed toward the
shore and recognized enough to get headed to LGA. They got there after sundown and
landed. Nobody saw them until they were on a taxiway headed toward the terminal.
Somebody complained to the tower that there was an unlit airplane on the taxiway.
A more complete preflight might have caught the cracked strap on our Musketeer and a
better clean up after maintenance would have precluded the Northeast incident.
Nothing is perfect and we can ”what if” any system to failure. I like the second alternator
because I have had several alternator failures, but then again I have had several engine
failures as well, and I no longer have a second engine!
I think the idea of an internal battery in the Garmin was a great idea, I wonder why
they dropped it in the newer sets?
As I said before, we each have to decide just what is our own level of comfort, but looking
at what has happened to others and gaining an insight as to what can reasonably be
done helps a lot!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000628 091007 msg10287.tex]

111
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Emergencies and Backup Systems

Fri, 28 Jan 2000 20:13:20

In a message dated 1/28/00 4:12:39 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Interesting observation. I had not run across it before. This suggests a

false sense of security?

Good Evening John,

That may be or maybe it is just too much complication to handle when things go to
pieces. Sometimes just having the basic minimum to work with allows full attention to
be placed on those minimum devices!
The FAA encourages us to call them when we are in trouble. I am sure that on an
overall basis, that is a good idea, but I think we should emphasize that the aircraft must
be flown first.
In competition glider flying, most contestants have noted that they just can’t do a supe-
rior job of working a thermal and talk on the radio at the same time. The concentration
required to hold that center of maximum lift is too great to spend any brain power
trying to communicate.
I wonder if Itzhak Jacoby might not have had a better chance of survival had he had no
need to communicate?
For What It’s Worth.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000128 201320 msg01958.tex]

112
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

Emergency IMC Descent

Wed, 5 Jul 2000 16:25:01

In a message dated 7/5/00 2:14:25 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

The fun part was to not touch the contol wheel at all and let the aircraft
stablize back to 90 Kts after the sprial recovery. I thought it was going
to stall but just I was preparing my stomach for the stall the nose dipped
back down. After several oscilations it went back to 90kts....and had lost
some altitude.

Good Afternoon Brad,

I normally do the demonstration at whatever is normal cruise for the airplane on the
assumption that would be the configuration in which the pilot ”lost it.” I will use quite
steep bank angles, up to 60 degrees occasionally, if things are going well and the student
is receptive, but I normally start off with something around thirty degrees. Even with
the steeper banks, there never seems to be any need to use pitch. I have come within
ten to fifteen knots of the redline on occasion, so turbulence could be a limiting factor.
Years ago, before the FAA required any instrument training for any pilot certificate other
than the ATR, I would teach the technique as a method to get through an overcast if
inadvertently stuck on top. For that, we would trim the airplane up for a comfortable
’power on’ descent. The student would then be taught to touch nothing but the rudder
and hold the turn needle in the middle (with the rudder only) until they saw the ground.
It was amazing. The bank would rarely reach ten degrees and often would be held within
five degrees of level. Who knows how well anyone would do for real, but it was fun to
teach!
When I soloed, spins were still a required maneuver for a private pilot so all of the
training airplanes spun quite predictably. We were taught that if we were ever caught
on top with no way to get down or with only very small holes in the overcast, to put
the airplane in a spin and keep it there until we saw the ground. Hopefully the ceiling
would be high enough so that one could effect a recovery from the spin!
There is more than one way to skin a cat.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000705 162501 msg10599.tex]

113
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Emergency Landing: Gear Up or Down?

Mon, 25 Jan 1999 17:07:19

Good Evening Carmine,

In a message dated 1/25/99 3:22:42 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

I believe the military require gear down on ground emergency landings.

Shearing the gear off dissipates a lot of energy that otherwise would be
transmitted to aircraft occupants. Cheers Carmine Pecoraro

I do believe that is the current thinking of our armed services. I also think that it is
very difficult to establish a ”best” solution to the question.
The current military position makes sense when the gear is relatively frangible as it is
on most of the current crop of fighters and even on the larger tankers and transports.
When the landing gear is fastened on a little more securely as it is in the Bonanza, I
think the potential for ripping up the airplane is a lot higher.
The structure on our favorite machine is likely to be badly ripped and bent if the landing
gear digs in and starts tearing the wings apart.
I have seen a number of Bonanzas landed gear up either intentionally or accidentally
and they have never torn apart unless they struck things such as trees, posts abutments
and such.
Of the airplanes that I have seen landed gear down following an engine failure, most
have had either no damage due to the excellent landing site chosen or extreme damage
including ripping the wing/s bad enough to spill fuel. Thus far, the ones that I have
been closely associated with have not gone over on to their backs, though I would think
that is a possibility if the ground is extremely soft such that the nose digs in.
It would appear that the gear is fastened to the rest of the airframe so solidly that it
does not come off or bend and absorb energy in the manner of current military aircraft.
I try to make a decision based on the landing area available. My default mode would
likely be gear up unless I had some information about the landing area that would
convince me otherwise.
In the three instances that I have had complete power failures in a Bonanza, I was able to
land on airports. Definitely a ”gear downer” for me! I have been fortunate enough that
the precautionary landings that I have made following ”developing” engine difficulties
have also terminated on an airport or private landing strip. (As an aside, when I have
a situation where I am not too confident in the reliability of the engine, I will make a
power off landing and possibly end up a little long on my touchdown. I don’t always
make a power approach, just most of the time!)
The only time I have landed with the gear not completely down was after the failure

114
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

of the nose gear to extend and my decision in that case was to land with the mains
extended.
Every case is different. Study the results of what others have done. Whatever decision
you make is the right one for you. Do it and don’t sweat it!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990125 170719 msg01147.tex]

115
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Endurance and Evaluating One’s Limits

Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:03:00

In a message dated 6/23/00 8:43:42 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

We had a mandatory eight hours ”off” before beginning an alert tour, which
meant we could go until 11 p.m. on night and start up another 32-hour
shift. We usually got two or three nonconsecutive days off a month.

Good Morning Tom,

Sounds like your Air Force duty rigs were about the same ones we used for international
flying! It always amazed me that our domestic rules, which weren’t all that tight, gave
us so much more rest and had so many more restrictions than the international rules!
My longest common ”duty day” these days is typically a visit to my daughter who lives
in Delaware. We depart C24 at six AM, fly three and a half hours to Dover, spend the
day and then head back to C24. That generally takes about four and a quarter to four
and a half hours. The arrival at home is generally around ten or ten thirty at night.
That adds up to something like a sixteen to sixteen and a half hour duty day, eighteen
hours or so from bed to bed.
I find that to be an easy comfortable day. I get to fly my nice little Bonanza over to have
a pleasant and relaxing visit with my daughter and her family. We then leave before we
get too boring to the youngsters and enjoy a nice relaxing evening ride home!
Having a good autopilot and modern navigation equipment aboard makes for easy op-
erations and being able to arrive at home with four or five hours of fuel on board takes
away any stress for the arrival.
The amount of rest needed by an individual is variable. One of the rules by which we in
the aircarrier industry operated was that if anyone felt that they were being asked by
the rules to fly beyond their comfort level, the operation should be shut down and rest
be obtained.
However, even though the right to stop and relax is guaranteed to every individual,
sometimes the opportunity just doesn’t exist. With that knowledge in mind, it behooves
us all to evaluate just how our individual systems work and develop a means to be able
to cope with those long duty days that will be presented to all of us on occasion.
The biggest problem occurs with the unusual occurrence. The only answer to being
able to handle the unusual is to have worked through as many possibilities as can be
discerned to develop procedures that will make the unusual routine.
That is evidently what the Air Force was trying to accomplish with the ”extraordinarily
strict, by-the-checklist, demand-and-response procedures for everything, which we were
literally taught to perform without thinking.”
Unfortunately, that type of thing still doesn’t cover the unexpected unusual situation!

116
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

When the non preconceived unusual situation occurs, the only action that I know to
take, is to tell yourself that you are at minimum capability and to recognize that fact
when you evaluate the action to be taken.
I have developed quite a few little things that work for me and feel quite comfortable
doing the routine acts of flying an airplane during a normal airline fifteen or sixteen
hour day. Beyond that, I feel that I have found the way that works for me to handle
those unexpected abnormalities that do occur to almost all of us.
While it all comes back to the same thing we constantly tell our students, ”Learn what
your limits are and stay within those limits,” there is also the thought that we should
be constantly evaluating what those limits are and developing methods whereby we may
safely expand those limits.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000623 120300 msg10011.tex]

117
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Engine Failure and Risk

Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:16:18

Good Evening Bob,

In a message dated 1/20/99 4:57:18 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

Hello Bob - I understand your rationale. But what about if you have an
engine failure on approach while in that full flaps high power / high drag
configuration?

Could be a BIG problem!!

I answered this question in an earlier comment as follows:

There has been a mention of what to do in case of a power failure. I

am afraid that I fly my airplane with the thought that the engine won’t
quit and if it does, take whatever action is available to me at the time.
I have had numerous engine failures in single engine airplanes (three in
Bonanzas) and do not mean that the potential should not be considered,
just that other considerations seem to be most important to me the vast
majority of the time. My approaches are planned to be power approaches
at least 99 percent of the time. Certainly the airplane would be flown in a
vastly different manner if it is to be operated so as to allow a no damage
landing following an engine failure.

I too was trained to be always prepared to handle an engine failure and for many years
I felt guilty about the large number of times that I found myself relying on the engine.
At my current stage in life, I find that I am quite comfortable with the risk.
I have noted that most accidents are caused by the airplane being flown in a manner
that is less than optimum for the conditions that prevail and that very few accidents
are caused by an unannounced failure of the power plant. Insurance statistics seem to
back up this rationale. I still get a little queasy flying on instruments at night over
mountainous terrain, but I do it anyway. That doesn’t mean that I think everyone
should take the same risk, just that I find the benefits to be such that I am willing to
accept the risk.
To each his own!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990120 201618 msg00909.tex]

118
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

Failed Attitude Indicator

Thu, 27 Nov 1997 21:19:06

To Mr. Mark Kolesar,

You probably have more information than you want on this subject but I can’t resist
one more comment.
I think George Braly’s system of back up is a good one, but is it any more reliable than
just making sure that your competency flying the airplane on Needle Ball and Airspeed
is up to snuff?
Flying the airplane without an artificial horizon is not particularly difficult to do but it
does take more than just a few minutes of practice. When the Bonanzas were first put
on the market, very few were equipped with a”full panel”. All came from the factory
with a needle and ball instrument and some had a directional gyro, but very rarely did
one see an artificial horizon. We flew them regularly IFR just as we do today. I installed
an electric T & B as a standby to my vacuum one and thought I had a fantastically well
equipped airplane!
Somewhere in the mid fifties the FAA mandated a full panel for IFR flying and we all
had to comply. Until the small gyros became readily available, some of us had to forego
IFR flight. The cost of the equipment and the difficulty of installation was considerable.
I personally can’t stand the ”turn coordinator” that has been substituted for the needle
and ball these last few years. It is easier to learn to use to a minimum standard but
a proper needle and ball, once mastered, provides a means of comfortably controlling
ANY airplane.
It is best if a failed attitude indicator is covered while flying partial panel. Our long
standing and hard won habits will try to make us correct for the false indications. Other
than that proviso, it really isn’t bad.
Spend the few hours of practice it takes to gain the proficiency necessary. It’s a lot
cheaper! Having the knowledge and capability to fly with needle, ball and airspeed is
VERY comforting to ones soul.
One airdriven Attitude Indicator and one electric T & B, what could be simpler and
cheaper.
Yours,
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19971127 211906 msg02550.tex]

119
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Failed Turn Coordinator and T&B’s

Sat, 24 Jun 2000 12:56:48

In a message dated 6/24/00 11:20:10 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Does this mean that the HSI and TC had both failed? Surely not.

Good Morning John,

As long as we are speculating on very little, if any, fact, suppose the Turn Coordinator
had been failed for some time and not noticed?
One of the reasons that I am so enamored of the Turn needle as opposed to the Turn
Coordinator, is that the turn coordinator does not serve as easily as a device to be
included in the normal instrument scan.
We all hope that our procedures include checking either a TC or a T&B as we are taxiing
out prior to departure, but I can tell you from personal experience that, at times, those
things that I absolutely always do, don’t get done. Checklist or no checklist.
If the turn coordinator had failed a flight or two before the last flight. It could conceiv-
ably have not been noticed. A failure of the attitude instrument, followed by an attempt
to use a TC that had failed earlier would be a very difficult situation for anyone, regard-
less of his/her experience and skill level.
I have found failed TCs and failed T&Bs on my airplane and on others that I was
operating. I have never been certain of how long they had been failed before I noticed
the failure.
I am sure many of you will say: ”It could never happen to me.”
Well, I hope you are correct, but it has happened to me and I have found failed in-
struments in airplanes in which I was merely a passenger or instructor. The owner was
generally unable to honestly tell me if the unit had been operating before the subject
flight or not.
Regular use of a rate of turn gyro as an adjunct to the attitude gyro will aid in picking
up a failure of the turn instrument as well as a failure of the attitude gyro.
The two generally accepted rate of turn instruments are the Turn Coordinator and the
old fashioned ’Turn Needle combined with a Ball Inclinometer’ instrument. The TC
cannot differentiate from a yaw or a roll and therefore does not give as positive an
indication of the rate of turn as does the T&B.
I know that nobody bothers with glancing at either of those instruments much anymore,
but utilizing either one in a normal scan would catch a failure.
Monitoring the rate of turn does give helpful information that can add to the smoothness
and precision of a normal turn with almost no wasted scan motion.

120
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

The Turn needle provides faster and more positive indication of the actual rate of turn
than does a TC.
They are both made by the same manufacturers, use similar, if not identical, components
and provide a similar rate of failure or reliability.
The use of a TC in lieu of a T&B by Dr. Jacoby was unlikely to have been a significant
contributor to that accident.
But I still want my T&B in a prime spot on my panel where I will be encouraged to use
it for every turn I make.
That is the best checklist there is!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000624 125648 msg10055.tex]

121
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Failure Modes and Backup Instruments

Fri, 3 Mar 2000 13:14:37

In a message dated 3/3/00 9:28:40 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

No, thanks, if things start going on holiday in that cockpit I’ll take every
bit of help I can get.

Good Morning Eric,

There had to be a lot going on in Itzhak’s cockpit. Most of which, we will probably
never know.
This is in no way meant to imply any action or lack of action in the subject accident,
but it does bring up a salient point.
One of the most difficult things in accident investigation is to try to figure out what the
pilot was doing and even what he might be thinking. That is why we have cockpit voice
recorders along with parameter recordings of the physical operation of the aircraft. It has
now been proposed that cameras be placed in the cockpit in an attempt to comprehend
the problems faced by the aviator.
Even with all of this technology, there is still a large gap between what we know and
what we would like to know about how we react to various failure modes. One of the
current problems is to understand just how the decision is made as to whether or not
something has failed and what is the appropriate action to take following that failure.
The current trend toward multiple backup systems means that there is another level of
decision making that is inserted into the equation. If you have two artificial horizons,
how do you determine which one is correct? The only way that I know of is to evaluate
the rate instruments and then draw a conclusion as to which is correct. If you should
happen to have three artificial horizons, the decision could be made by simple multiple
failure probability analysis, but it would still take time and want to be verified by an
analysis of the rate instruments.
If the failure is one which, after recognition, requires a pilot/operator action to initiate
corrective action, the situation is even worse.
As an example, I have a Century I as a back up roll autopilot. If my pneumatic system
fails, I can turn on the Century and it will fly the aircraft quite well. BUT, I have to
first determine that there has been failure, decide what that failure was, then if using
the back up autopilot seems to be the best course of action, turn it on. That scenario
assumes that I am not in any way confused as to what has occurred and I know from
experience that I am often confused when failure occurs. The more equipment I have,
the more failures are possible. The more options I have, the more analysis necessary
before a proper decision can be made.
It isn’t easy for anyone, regardless of training, experience or equipment.

122
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

The more simple the transfer can be made and the greater confidence one has in the
back up system the more likely it is to result in a comfortable outcome.
The beauty of the Turn needle is that nothing else even looks remotely like it. If it used
in everyday instrument flight for simple things like trying to make every turn a standard
rate turn, confidence and familiarity can be maintained.
I agree, it isn’t intuitive, it does take training and who really needs standard rate turns
anyhow!
Nevertheless, it is the instrument in which I feel I can have the greatest confidence in a
confusing situation.
It’s failure mode is simple, if it wiggles it is working, if it doesn’t wiggle it is not working.
Still my favorite last ditch decision maker!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000303 131437 msg04140.tex]

123
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Frozen Pitot Tube

Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:46:49

In a message dated 10/20/99 8:50:19 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Dear Old Bob, As I recall, if your pitot freezes over, it locks in your present
indicated airspeed. Then you wouldn’t know it was locked in until you, say
started descending, and instead of your airspeed increasing, it would stay
at the former cruise speed, right? Jerry. J35.

Good Morning Jerry,

It depends!
That was one common indication, but the pitot lines weren’t required to be tested as they
are today. If the system were properly tight, the airspeed indication would sometimes
stay where it was. However it wasn’t uncommon for it to slowly decrease and on some
occasions it would slowly increase. I think, but don’t know for sure, that temperature
changes in the non-flowing air in the lines from the pitot to the instrument were causing
the increases and leaks were causing the decrease.
If the lines were really tight, the airspeed indication would increase as altitude was
increased and decrease as altitude was decreased.
It wasn’t hard to note the iced over pitot as we were expecting it as a normal thing in
icing conditions.
Happy Skies,
Old bob
[ARTICLES/19991020 104649 msg09518.tex]

124
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

Gear Up Landing: Paved or Turf Runway?

Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:57:52

In a message dated 9/21/99 10:12:00 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Do you put it on the asphalt or on the grass?

Do you set up for ”landing assured” and then try the old routine of stopping
the prop and kicking it horizontal with the starter, or do you just let the
insurance company have it?

Good Evening Eric,

Strictly personal opinions and my reasons therefore.
I would land on the asphalt unless it was known to me to be badly cracked and full of
potholes. Even then I would only land on the grass if it was known to me to be smooth
as a billiard table and very hard surfaced. I would rather take my chance of some greater
damage to the belly and nose bowl and reduce my odds of digging in and losing control
of the aircraft. I think the possibility of fire is less on the asphalt with a controlled
landing than it would be on the grass if the aircraft dug in and swerved or flipped.
Either landing would likely be successful though. The Bonanza lands gear up quite
safely.
I would also land with the flaps retracted to reduce the possibility of the nose digging
in. Once again, gear up, flaps down landings with Bonanzas are eminently safe and
successful. Not a big deal either way.
I would elect to land with the engine fully operational. Magnetos on, electrical system
hot and fuel to the engine. I think most people screw up the approach and cause
problems when they try to shut down. I would rather have as normal an airplane as
possible for maximum control of the aircraft right down to the touchdown and I would be
too busy maintaining what control was possible to mess around with the engine controls
after touchdown!
Once again, the incidence of fire occurring is almost non existent in the Bonanza when
a planned belly landing is executed.
As far as damage to the engine is concerned, My local overhaul shop told me that he
has never had a crankshaft fail a prop strike inspection when the engine was running
at touchdown. The ones that have failed the examination have all been stopped, not
rotating, or at least, not being driven at all when they contacted the ground. His theory
is that the last couple of power pulses before stoppage occurs even out and distribute
the stresses throughout the crankshaft. His theory, not mine!
Thems m’ plans!!
Happy Skies,

125
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Old bob
[ARTICLES/19990921 235752 msg08703.tex]

126
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

Gear Up Landing: Paved or Turf Runway?

Sat, 11 Mar 2000 02:13:58

In a message dated 3/10/00 10:58:07 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

With all the bonanzas and barons that land gear up on runways and are
fixed, if this ever (I pray NOT)happens to me - I am going for the runway.
Steve

Good Morning Steve and All,

I agree with Steve,
For a Bonanza, an intentional gear up landing on a hard surface will almost always be
safer and cause less damage than one made on sod.
I would choose the smoothest hard surface around and land with normal power. Defi-
nitely NOT with feathered props.
That is the way I did it when my nose gear refused to extend and I was/am very pleased
with the result.
The same week that I had my incident, there was a Piper twin out on the west coast
which had lost a nose wheel. Main gear and nose strut were down and locked. The only
abnormality was the loss of the nose wheel itself. The guy feathered both engines and
went for a dead stick landing. It was poorly planned and executed and the maneuver
resulted in the loss of an airplane when the absolutely worst case if he had done a normal
landing would have been a possible collapse of the nose strut. On good smooth asphalt,
chances are the nose strut would have merely been ground down a bit. I don’t know
if any passengers were on board, but putting all passenger and movable weight in a
position to place the CG at the aft limit would not have been a bad idea. If the flaps
would either have not been used or retracted immediately after touchdown and full back
stick held, damage could have been minimized.
Once again, I would vote for a hard surface and a normal powered landing. Why make
a simple problem into a complicated one?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000311 021358 msg04569.tex]

127
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Gear Up Landing: Paved or Turf Runway?

Sat, 11 Mar 2000 12:24:26

In a message dated 3/11/00 10:20:29 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I did my gear-up on a long hard surface runway at a rural airport. If I had

to do it intentionally again, I would do it the same way. If I was at a busy
metro airport with no option of going somewhere else, I might give a bit
more thought to the grass.

Good Morning Frank,

I couldn’t agree more with the thought that the major damage is likely to be done by
the recovery crew.
I chose a short runway that was not in use at the time and landed so as to stop at a
spot that would not interfere with airport operations. I had also made arrangements to
have my maintenance people out on the airport to do the recovery. The airport people
were not allowed to touch anything, and nothing was done to the airplane until the
maintenance supervisor and I had agreed to the procedure.
Damage control is an extremely important part of the equation.
The only case that I have personally been involved with where a landing on other than
a hard surface did less damage than a landing on a hard surface was when a friend of
mine made a precautionary landing due to worsening weather. He shut down the engine,
Did the slipping bit and got the prop stopped. (It was one of the early wooden props,
they stop easier.) He nudged it to horizontal with the starter and then landed gear
and flaps up in a muddy corn field when the corn was about two feet high. After the
weather cleared, the landing gear was lowered and the airplane was moved to a nearby
road and flown home. They washed the belly and repaired an antenna or two. Very
unusual conditions and a very sharp aviator!
Most sod landings end up with substantially more damage than on a hard surface. The
potential for very bad damage and loss of control is much higher.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000311 122426 msg04576.tex]

128
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

Gear Up landing: Flaps Up or Down?

Sat, 11 Mar 2000 16:14:03

In a message dated 3/11/00 1:49:25 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob:
On those flaps, keep them down? Retract them? The V-tail in a recent
ABS magazine I think had the flaps down and the damage was not that
bad - so it looked. Steve

Good Afternoon Steve,

It all depends! On every one that I have seen that landed with the flaps down, there
was considerable nose bowl damage. On one when where the pilot had forgotten to
lower the gear and made a nice full stall landing, the pitch down after the flaps touched
was enough that it didn’t just grind away the keel sections and nose bowl, it bent the
structure where the keels attach to the fuselage. That may not have looked like a lot of
damage but it was very extensively damaged internally. So a flaps down belly landing
will get the flaps, likely damage the wing structure where the flaps are attached, and do
serious damage to the nose bowl and keel structure.
A full belly landing with the flaps up will damage the belly. It may get one or both of
the inboard doors. Depending on the number and placement of antenna, sometimes the
main gear doors aren’t damaged at all. The nose gear doors fair about the same as the
mains. They are usually damaged, but not always. The belly is generally easier and
cheaper to repair than the flap, keel and nose bowl combination.
For a landing with the main gear down and the nose gear up, it is pertinent to consider
the possibility that there might be better elevator authority with the flaps up. That has
to be counterbalanced against the knowledge that the approach will be less normal and
therefore have a greater possibility of being mishandled. Tough call. The approach could
be made using flaps and then retracting them after main gear touchdown. I don’t like
that as it introduces another abnormal handling characteristic. My suggestion would
be that unless the pilot is very comfortable and rather well experienced at flying the
airplane using no flaps, that full flap be used when the nose gear is up. I used no flap
and I did end up a little higher and faster on the approach than I had planned which
meant that I had to reduce the throttle more and work a little harder to have the speed
where I wanted it at my planned touch down spot. Had I really screwed up, I still could
have gone around which was why I never shut down the engine.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000311 161403 msg04594.tex]

129
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

IFR Flight Risk

Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:30:56

In a message dated 1/19/01 9:19:43 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Here is one for the IFR people to think about:

[The Canard Aviators’s Mailing list]
re ”IMHO the best instrument set-up is still mostly vacuum driven from a
vacuum pump with one directional gyro being electrical. (Either the DG
or the Turn needle)” and ” Have Fun, Fly Safely” - Al Fink.
Hard IFR on one engine with no radar, no de-ice, and no real instrument
redundancy (an electric turn co-ordinator won’t hack it in anything but
very still air) is a formula for shredded fiber glass and a short life.

Good Morning Cy,

The examples your friends present in opposition to IFR flight with minimum equipment
could be extended to any flight at all.
There is a risk in flight.
If man had been meant to fly, he would have been given wings.
Haven’t we all heard that before?
If no one flies there will be no aviation accidents.
We who do fly all have to make our own decisions as to whether or not the benefits to
be derived are worthy of the risks involved.
If no one flies at night or on instruments there will be fewer accidents under those
conditions!
The fact is that single engine, single pilot, single radio, single instrument power source
IFR flight has a very good safety record when compared to the safety record of any other
single pilot IFR flight.
That is why the regulations still allow it!
There is no statistical evidence to support the conclusion reached in your message.
Now, I certainly don’t think you, or anyone else, who is not comfortable accepting that
risk should run out and start doing it, but I don’t think it is valid to claim that what
you, or anyone else, considers to be an unacceptable risk should banned for others unless
the risk to the general public is such that they need to be protected from us.
The Jacoby and Carnahan accidents may force some restrictions on general aviation

130
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

flight because of the risk to the general public. Have you noticed that both of those
flights were conducted in aircraft that had a high degree of redundancy?
I have been actively flying IFR with minimum IFR equipment for 51 years. I don’t know
how much equipment Johnny Miller has in his Bonanza, but he has been flying single
pilot IFR for close to twenty years longer than I have.
There are many others who have learned to operate IFR in the last couple of years
who are also using the same system safely and efficiently to the lowest weather minima
allowed.
It doesn’t take experience, but training and competency is required. It helps to be able
to stay inside your own and the equipment’s capabilities.
I have a theory, totally unsupported by adequate data, that some of our recent problems
have occurred because there was too much equipment available to the pilot and that
resulted in confusion as to how best to handle the situation. Sometimes, simpler is
better.
I challenge your friends, or anyone else, to show that minimum equipped single pilot
light aircraft have a worse safety record than those that are loaded with gadgets.
Intuitively, it would seem that more should be better, but it just doesn’t turn out that
way.
The airlines and corporate fleets have developed an enviable safety record. They gen-
erally have a two pilot or larger crew complement and, in the case of the airlines, have
many restrictions on their operation.
I doubt if there is any way that we could ever attain the same safety level in our small
GA aircraft, but that doesn’t mean the risk we take should be prohibited.
I am afraid your friends have taken the attitude that ”I don’t want to do it so you
shouldn’t either.”
What happened to all of the rugged individualists?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010119 123056 msg01226.tex]

131
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Is a VFR Bonanza Pilot Safe?

Thu, 9 Nov 2000 21:57:29

In a message dated 11/9/00 8:23:43 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I resent any implication that a VFR Bonanza pilot is somehow not as safe
as an instrument rated Bo pilot as someone had implied earlier in this
thread.

Good Evening Paul,

I agree whole heartedly!
Safety is a function of how well an individual flies within his/her capabilities.
Fancy equipment can provide equivalent safety in tougher conditions, but the safety of
the flight is the same in a Piper J-3 as in a fully crewed 747 as long as the risks are
properly evaluated and contained by operational constrictions.
The capability to fly IFR makes it easier to maintain that safety while maintaining a
schedule.
I know many folks who have been flying actively for fifty years or more in high perfor-
mance single and multiengine airplanes who have maintained an excellent safety record.
I think it is a lot easier to maintain that level of safety if one flies IFR, but as long as
it is maintained, that is what really counts.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001109 215729 msg15970.tex]

132
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

Itzhak Jacoby NTSB Factual Report

Sun, 25 Jun 2000 18:35:46

In a message dated 6/25/00 4:44:18 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Hi how can I get to read factual report on Jacoby accident? Charlie Reilly

Good Afternoon Charlie,

Do you want something beyond what Bob Newman published on this forum?
The address he gave is: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/NYC/lnarr 00A039.htm
A copy is printed below.
Old Bob
NYC00FA039 HISTORY OF FLIGHT
On November 26, 1999, about 1053 Eastern Standard Time, a Beechcraft S35, N8992M,
was destroyed when it impacted a building in a residential area. The certificated airline
transport pilot and the two passengers received fatal injuries. In addition, two individ-
uals on the ground received serious injuries, and 25 received minor injuries. Instrument
meteorological conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was
filed. The personal flight departed Linden, New Jersey, about 1049, and was conducted
under 14 CFR Part 91.
A review of air traffic control (ATC) communication tapes revealed that after departing
Linden, the pilot contacted New York Departure Control. He was instructed to turn
left to a heading of 010 degrees, and to maintain 5,000 feet. A few seconds later, the
controller revised the clearance, and instructed the pilot to maintain 2,000 feet. Thirty-
four seconds after that, the controller instructed the pilot to turn left to a heading of
270 degrees, to which the pilot did not reply. The controller reissued the heading, but
there was still no response.
The controller made two more attempts to reestablish communications. After the sec-
ond attempt the pilot responded, ”I have a problem.” The controller inquired about
the problem and the pilot responded, ”I had a gyro problem momentarily. It looks
straightening now. I must of had water in the system.” Twenty seconds after that, the
controller radioed ”...continue the right turn all the way around... correction you’re in
a left turn now.” The pilot responded ”yes sir... left turn climbing to niner thousand.”
The controller stated, ”stop your climb at two thousand, turn left, left turn heading
two seven zero.” The controller then asked the pilot if he was ok to navigate. The pilot
responded, ”I think I have a problem.” The pilot then requested a climb. The controller
instructed the pilot to maintain 2,000 feet and requested the pilot’s current heading.
The pilot responded, ”...looks like zero three zero.” The controller then instructed the
pilot to turn left to 270 degrees, to which the pilot did not respond. The controller
reissued the altitude and heading. Still there was no response. The controller then

133
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

radioed ”niner two mike I need to be acknowledged please.” The pilot replied, ”I have a
problem.” This was the last recorded transmission from the accident airplane.
Examination of radar data showed a target, using the accident airplane’s assigned
transponder code, heading east at an altitude of approximately 900 feet, when the pilot
first reported a problem. Over the next 2 minutes, the target’s ground track changed
from east, to north, to northeast, to northwest, and then back to north. In the last
30 seconds of radar data, the target reached a maximum altitude of 2,800 feet and a
161 knots of airspeed, before beginning a descent that reached approximately 10,000
foot-per-minute.
The accident happened during the hours of daylight. The wreckage was located 40
degrees, 43.807 minutes north latitude, 74 degrees, 12.152 minutes west longitude, and
about 220 feet elevation.
OTHER DAMAGE
Approximately 18 buildings received varying degrees of damage. The damaged ranged
from broken windows to structural. Three of the buildings were condemned, and then
demolished. The City of Newark estimated the property damage to be approximately
$1,150,000. In addition, approximately eight automobiles were damaged as a result of
the accident. Four of them were destroyed with the remaining seven receiving varying
degrees of impact and fire damage.
PERSONNEL INFORMATION
The pilot held an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane single-engine-land
rating. In addition, he held a commercial pilot certificate with ratings for airplane multi-
engine land, single-engine-sea, and glider. His last Federal Aviation Administration
second class medical certificate was dated November 1, 1999. On the medical application,
the pilot reported 5,800 hours of total flight experience, with 120 hours in the last 6
months.
Two pilot logbooks were examined. The first one was a conventional logbook that
started on January 1, 1992 and ended on December 4, 1998. In the previous ”total box”
at the beginning of this logbook was an entry for 2,253 hours. Over the 7-year period
covered by the logbook, the pilot logged an additional 1,764 hours of flight experience.
The second logbook examined was computerized. It started on January 1, 1999, and
the last entry was on July 5, 1999. During this period, the pilot logged 155 hours of
flight experience. The combination of the two logbooks indicated the pilot had a total
flight experience of 4,172 hours, with 1,308 hours of that in actual instrument conditions.
Witnesses reported that the pilot was actively flying to the date of the accident.
METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION
The weather observation for Newark International Airport, Newark, New Jersey, at 1051,
was 2-1/2 miles of visibility, light rain and mist, 600 foot scattered, 1,300 foot broken,
temperature 61 degrees Fahrenheit, dew point 59 degrees Fahrenheit, and an altimeter
setting of 30.02 inches of mercury.

134
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION

Oriented south to north, the debris path was approximately 760 feet long, and for
reference purposes was divided into 1-foot increments called stations. Station 1 was
an impact mark on the southwest corner of the roof of an abandoned three-story brick
building. Approximately 50 percent of the roof and 50 percent of the third floor were
consumed in the post-crash fire. On the third floor, melted aluminum was found below
the initial impact mark. On the northwest corner of the roof, which was not consumed
by fire, were sections of the airplane totaling about 120 pounds. After the brick building,
the debris path continued to the north primarily along the left side of a residential street.
It then crossed a road at station 420, a parking lot at station 480, and then another
road at station 580 before ending at station 760.
Both propeller blades were located near station 335. Both blades had separated from
the propeller hub, and both displayed chordwise scratching and leading edge gouging. In
addition, both blades were broken into two sections. The fracture surfaces on the blades
were consistent with overload, with the leading edge portion of the fractures consistent
with tension, and the trailing edge consistent with compression.
The engine was separated from the airframe and was located at station 349. All six
cylinders displayed evidence of impact damage, and approximately 80 percent of the
crankcase had been compromised revealing the inner workings of the engine. An exam-
ination of the engine revealed no pre-impact failures or malfunctions. Both the primary
and standby vacuum pumps had separated from their respective engine mounts. An ex-
ternal and internal examination of both units was preformed on scene, and no pre-impact
failures or malfunctions were identified.
The main wreckage was wrapped around a telephone pole at station 385. It comprised
approximately 30 percent of the airplane’s overall mass, and included portions of the
tail, floorboard, cabin area and cockpit. The dimension of the main wreckage area was
approximately 8 feet by 8 feet, and less than 2-1/2 feet high. Fracture surfaces for both
the wing roots and tail section were consistent with overload.
Flight control continuity was verified for approximately 90 percent of the airplane, and
no pre-impact failures or malfunctions were identified with the system. Continuity of
the vacuum system plumbing could not be verified because of impact damage.
MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION
An autopsy was performed on the pilot, by Dr. Lyla E. Perez on November 27, 1999, at
the Medical Examiners Office in Newark, New Jersey.
According to the autopsy report, the pilot died from multiple extensive traumatic in-
juries. In addition, the report stated that the pilot had 2.84 (mg/l) of butalbital in his
urine, (1.28 mg/l) in his kidney, and 1.44 (mg/l) in his spleen.
Two toxicological tests were performed by the Federal Aviation Administrations Toxi-
cology and Accident Research Laboratory, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on heart, kidney,
lung, muscle, spleen, urine, and body tissue samples taken from the pilot. According to

135
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

the test results, 3.239 (ug/ml, ug/g) of butalbital was detected in muscle, 1.887 (ug/ml,
ug/g) of acetaminophen was detected in urine, and 102.488 (ug/ml, ug/g) of salicylate
was detected in urine. Blood samples were not available for examination.
The FAA Toxicology and Accident Research Laboratory performed a study that com-
pared muscle and blood levels of butalbital in post-mortem specimens. The laboratory
reported that blood levels were higher than muscle levels in every individual tested, on
the average 1.52 times higher.
According to the Journal of Analytical Toxicology, ”blood and plasma concentrations of
butalbital (from Fiorinal) was determined in a small group of healthy volunteers. After
single oral doses of 100 mg of the drug, butalbital was quantitated by high-performance
liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection. Typical blood concentrations of bu-
talbital peaked at 2.1 mg/L and declined to 1.5 mg/L at 24 hours.”
According to the pilot’s private medical records, he received a medical examination on
February 16, 1976. During the examination, it was noted that he suffered from migraine
headaches, and that he was using Fiorinal (a barbiturate, aspirin, and caffeine drug) to
control the pain. Over the next several years, the pilot continued to be examined for
migraine headaches, and his Fiorinal usage continued to increase.
On July 16, 1989, a telephone consultation was conducted by a nurse. It was noted that
the pilot was suffering from ”severe migraine” headaches, and that Tylenol or aspirin
provided no relief. The pilot ”refused to come in for an evaluation.” He just wanted a
refill that would last until morning when he could call an internist. It was also noted
that the pilot was taking one Fiorinal every 4 to 6 hours. After July 16, 1989, there was
no record of the pilot ever being evaluated for headaches.
According to pharmacy records, the pilot was dispensed over 6,000 tablets of Fiorinal
or the generic equivalent from 1992 to October 1999. The records also indicated that in
1999, the pilot was dispensed 800 tablets of Fiorinal or the generic equivalent.
On the pilot’s last FAA medical application, he stated that he was not taking any
prescription or nonprescription medication, and he had never suffered from sever or
frequent headaches. A review of every FAA medical application on file for the pilot,
revealed the same statements as above.
According to The 1999 Physician’s Desk Reference, ”Fiorinal (butalbital, aspirin, and
caffeine) is indicated for the relief of the symptom complex of tension (or muscle con-
traction) headache. Evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of Fiorinal (butalbital,
aspirin, and caffeine) in the treatment of multiple recurrent headaches is unavailable.
Caution in this regard is required because butalbital is habit-forming and potentially
abusable....The most frequent adverse reactions are drowsiness and dizziness.”
According to the October 1999 FAA Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners, a history
or presence of any of the following conditions would preclude the issuance of a medical
certificate: migraine headaches, migraine equivalent, cluster headaches, chronic tension
headache, or conversion headaches.

136
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

In addition, the publication stated that, ”...pain, in some conditions, may be acutely
incapacitating. Chronic recurring headaches or pain syndromes often require medica-
tions for relief or prophylaxis, and in most instances, the use of such medications is
disqualifying because they may interfere with a pilot’s alertness and functioning. The
Examiner may issue a medical certificate to an applicant with a long standing history
of headaches if mild, seldom requiring more than simple analgesics, occur infrequently,
and are not incapacitating, and are not associated with neurological stigmata.” This
exact same language is used in the September 1996 FAA Guide for Aviation Medical
Examiners.
TESTS AND RESEARCH
On December 27, 1999, the RAPCO standby clutch assembly was disassembled and
examined under the supervision of a Safety Board Investigator at RAPCO’s facility in
Hartland, Wisconsin. The engine-side of the clutch displayed rotational scoring con-
sistent with a momentary impact, and the vacuum pump side did not. In addition,
electrical and mechanical continuity for the clutch assembly was verified. No pre-impact
failure or malfunctions were identified.
Three gyros, and two gyro cases, were examined by the Safety Board’s Material Labora-
tory. The vacuum driven gyro from the attitude indicator displayed rotational scoring.
No rotational scoring was observed either on the horizontal-situation indicator’s (HSI)
vacuum driven gyro, or on the turn coordinator’s electric driven gyro. In addition, static
marks consistent with no or little rotation were observed on the HSI gyro housing. The
turn-coordinator-gyro housing was not recovered.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The wreckage was released to the owner’s insurance company on March 18, 2000.
[ARTICLES/20000625 183546 msg10102.tex]

137
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Lighting Strike
Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:00:03

In a message dated 8/23/00 12:04:14 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I’d like to hear that story.

Any of you ancient aviators get hit by lightning flying a Bo?

Good Morning Bill,

I have never had a static discharge in a light airplane, but Bill Embury, of the WBS and
Southwest Bonanza Society, had a strike while flying in cloud on the way to a WBS flyin
at Twin Falls, Idaho, a few years back. If I recall correctly, there were some marks on
the prop and a few exit marks (entrance marks?) on the tail cone. The airplane looked
pretty normal, but his insurance company wanted the engine and prop torn down for
inspection.
I think he wrote the experience up for the WBS newsletter.
Those incidences were fairly common in the piston days, especially in the midwest and
before we got airborne radar.
One time, after a pretty impressive blast in the cockpit, we had a call from the flight
attendants who reported that a blue ball of fire had traveled the length of the cabin
right down the aisle.
After a discharge, we would check the radios and such for damage and press on. The
maintenance people often found light bulbs that had exploded and holes in some of the
control surface edges. Occasionally, there would be a bearing in a hinge that would be
burned out and destroyed, but I never had anything dangerous occur.
I just gotta tell you about my very first trip as a Captain!
It was 1957 and I was flying a Convair 340 from Cleveland to LaGuardia. While in
cloud, near Youngstown, Ohio, we experienced a pretty potent lightning strike. Within
another thirty seconds or so, we flew out of the weather and were back in nice clear
skies. I checked the compasses and radios. All seemed normal. I turned off the seat belt
sign, called the company to report the strike, sat back and wrote it up in the logbook.
The copilot and I then just enjoyed the flight.
About twenty minutes later, the cabin to cockpit interphone rang. When I answered the
call, it was one of the stewardesses. In a very terrified voice, she asked what was going
to happen?
Since I thought everything was just fine, I had no idea what she was talking about! She
said that it sounded like the airplane was coming apart and that she and the passengers
had been afraid to move ever since the loud bang which had occurred back when we

138
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

were still in the clouds.

Now, present day thinking is that the Captain should stay in the cockpit during unusual
events and send another crewmember back to see what is going on, but since that was
not then the policy, I went back to the cabin to see what was happening.
I found that the HF antenna had been cut off near the point at which it fastened to
the tail. The HF radio had checked out normal as the fastening at the tail was just
an insulator. The antenna was beating against the left side of the aircraft and it was
making a terrible racket.
I tried to assure the folks that there was no problem and that we would encounter no
difficulties on our landing at LGA. I did advise the company of the problem and didn’t
use reverse on landing so as to assure that the antenna wouldn’t get caught in the
prop. I had asked for equipment, just in case, and we stopped on the runway to allow
a maintenance person to cut off the remaining antenna before we taxied to the gate.
So, my first trip as Captain and I had to file an irregularity report!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000823 110003 msg12469.tex]

139
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Loss of Airspeed Indicator/Heated Pitot Tube

Wed, 20 Oct 1999 08:43:59

In a message dated 10/19/99 11:33:59 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I’m looking for a heated pitot and mast. I don’t believe you need a heated
on for IFR cert though.
I fly my BE35 IFR with a cold pitot. Though I pay real close attention to
the OAT if I’m in the wet.
Scott

Good Morning Scott and Gord,

For What Its Worth; Beech called the unheated pitot tube installed on the early Bonan-
zas an ”Ice Resistant Pitot Tube.” The first couple of thousand hours I flew in Bonanzas
were in aircraft with that tube and I did find it to be ice resistant. While flight in cloud
in a Piper Pacer or Cessna 170 would result in a loss of the pitot indication almost
immediately after noting any ice anywhere on the airframe, such was not the case on
the Bonanza. I would often pick up an eighth to a quarter inch of airframe ice before I
lost the airspeed.
In those days of yore, very few light aircraft were equipped with heated pitot tubes. Our
flight training and conditioning was such that the loss of airspeed indication was not only
tolerated, but expected and the flight was conducted accordingly. Proper attention to
power settings, the attitude instruments (if installed) and the remaining rate instruments
made the operation acceptable.
I would like to make some further comment.
Autopilots were not available and attitude gyros were rare, we developed rather good
scans and utilized partial panel a lot.
BUT, we had very little to do except fly the airplane!
The low frequency range took very little tuning and that tuning was done mostly with
the ears. Navigation was also via the ear and our transmitters were so weak that we
rarely had to communicate. There were no VORs, few ADFs and no Flight Management
Computers to take our attention away from flying the airplane.
These are different times and the problems are different. While I think all of us should
be able to control the airplane comfortably after the loss of the pitot tube information
and on a basic partial panel, my current airplane has an autopilot and I find it difficult to
fully use the full complement of flight aids available today without using the autopilot.
Just remember, if you do lose your airspeed, the first priority is to fly the airplane!
Happy Skies,

140
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991020 084359 msg09513.tex]

141
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Loss of Control - Stop the Turn!

Fri, 28 Apr 2000 20:58:47

In a message dated 4/28/00 7:21:36 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Have I missed the point of the T&B vs the TC?

Good Evening John,

Your thoughts are on the right track but you have the functions confused.
The T&B responds only to yaw. The turn coordinator has the canted gyro and responds
to both. The beauty of the turn needle is that it tells you when you are going straight.
If the airplane is not turning, you won’t get in trouble. If John Kennedy and Itzahk
could have stopped their turns, they would be with us today. Admittedly, if the wings
are level and the airplane is coordinated, it should not turn. but if something has it out
of balance (like an engine out) you can still get in trouble with the wings level. I repeat!
Stop the turn and you will survive.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000428 205847 msg07257.tex]

142
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

Loss of Control - Stop the Turn!

Thu, 11 May 2000 01:42:39

Good Morning All,

If anyone is interested in another opinion concerning the validity of stopping the turn to
avoid bad things, check out the article by Paul Soderlind on AvWeb at http://www.avweb.com/articles/spiral/
He advocates using rudder only to stop the turn. I agree whole heartedly, but contend
that the best instrument to use to determine that the turn is stopping is the good old
fashioned Turn Needle!
Paul suggests cautious and gentle use of the rudder.
I wouldn’t worry about being too gentle if things are going some place in a hand basket.
Just shove on that rudder and get the needle back in the center.
Stop the turn and you will survive!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/20000511 014239 msg07991.tex]

143
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Loss of Control - Stop the Turn!

Tue, 4 Jul 2000 18:25:25

In a message dated 7/4/00 11:45:16 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Guys, I’m still having a little trouble fundamentally understanding this

truth. I was always taught to keep the wings level and you will survive.
Nothing about the nose other than to keep out of a dive with rapid build
up of speed.

Good Evening John,

Obviously there is a big difference of opinion as to whether the primary emphasis should
be on wings level or not turning.
I am a strong believer in making the emphasis on stopping the turn. I don’t care whether
the airplane is coordinated or not and I don’t care if the wings are level.
If the airplane is not turning, you won’t get in trouble.
My reasons for thinking this way are partially directed toward multiengine aircraft, but
even on a single, if something happens that causes asymmetrical drag, stopping the turn
will still give the pilot the best chance to sort things out.
The guys who came within 60 some feet of planting a 747-400 in San Francisco had their
wings level but were turning off course toward much higher terrain.
Even more than the asymmetrical drag possibility, the simplicity of just stopping the
turn seems to fit better with all of the non conventional back up emergency sources of
information. If one wants to try to use a GPS or compass as a source of maintaining
emergency control, it is stopping the turn that will tell you things are OK. How will
you tell that the wings are level by looking at a GPS? How can you tell the wings are
level by looking at a DG? How can you tell the wings are level by looking at a magnetic
compass?
You can tell whether the airplane is turning by looking at an ADF pointing to a station
some distance away. What will the ADF tell you about how level the wings are?
When I was a lad, I was taught that if I ever got stuck on top of an overcast without
instruments, one way to get it safely down through that stuff was to head toward the
sun and mark the spot where the sun was on the windshield. Maintain the sun in that
position during the descent and survival was possible. That is totally a function of not
allowing the airplane to turn. Who cares whether the wings are level or not?
Trying to level the wings to stop the turn is an unnecessary extra step. You first level
the wings and then look to some sort of a heading device to see if the turn has stopped.
I consider that to be a waste of effort that just might be the trigger that upsets the
entire apple cart.

144
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

When all h— is breaking loose, most of us need something simple that we can hang our
last hopes on.
Make your mind think turn, not level!
The change to attitude flying instead of rate flying came upon us during WWII as one
of those war time training expediencies.
It was seen as a way to produce pilots who could get the aircraft over the target as long
as everything was working OK. If they lost their attitude instruments, they could always
bail out! Rate flying takes longer to learn than does attitude flying, no question about
that. However, it is my contention that those who have learned to maintain control
of the aircraft via rate instrument flight are more likely to adapt to an unusual failure
scenario than are those whose proficiency is based on attitude flying.
It is rather like those who learn to fly on tail wheel equipped aircraft and those who have
flown only trigear. The ones who learn on a tailwheel equipped aircraft experience little
if any difficulty transitioning to trigear. The trigear trained ones, depending on how they
were taught to fly the trigear, will often experience considerable difficulty transitioning
to tail wheel equipped machines.
I don’t know any pilots who are proficient in rate flying who have any difficulty flying
attitude. Many who are proficient in attitude flying find it difficult to utilize only rate
instruments.
I teach and strongly endorse the use of rate instrument flight as the basis from which to
transition to attitude based flight.
Think TURN!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000704 182525 msg10524.tex]

145
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Loss of Control - Stop the Turn! (Demonstrating)

Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:06:57

In a message dated 7/5/00 10:57:20 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Some time ago several on the list were talking about recovery from sprial
using only the rudder. I tried this and it was a little nerve racking seeing
the slip so great during a high performace manuver. I felt that this sort of
recovery, expecially during a time of emergency you would want to do it as
quick as possible and and in as cooridinated fashion as possible. Why is it
that all you rudder recovery guys think this is the way to go?
Brad...

Good Afternoon Brad,

I think something has been lost in this discussion.
A coordinated recovery would be my choice anytime, but if that were not working, the
rudder use to stop the turn would take precedence.
The demonstration that it can be done with rudder alone is supposed to be a confidence
builder to help a totally non instrument qualified pilot realize that there is a way, though
a very uncomfortable way, to get the airplane into a safe flight regime by the use of
nothing but a control that will stop the turn.
When making the demonstration, it is best to not get the aircraft into too violent an
attitude before executing the recovery technique. It also helps to make the input steady
and not too abrupt. It will be found that just pushing hard enough on the rudder to
stop the airspeed from increasing is hard enough to start with. Completely stopping the
turn can take a fair amount of time without lessening the effect to be noted.
Obviously, some airplanes can handle a greater displacement more comfortably than
others. Aircraft with interconnected controls do it a lot nicer than those not so equipped.
Still, if all else fails, stomping on the rudder will work and it puts the petrified aviator on
the course of stopping the turn which is the thing that is most likely to assure survival
of the aircraft.
The emphasis on the turn is the important thing. By having the student not use the
control column, he/she is less likely to add the back pressure too soon which is the action
which will place the aircraft in that dreaded grave yard spiral.
For a knowledgeable instrument pilot who is capable of recognizing the incipient spiral,
a coordinated roll to level using rudder and aileron is always preferred. Even judicious
and pertinent application of pitch is desirable provided the pilot is aware of what is
happening.
The ”stomp the rudder” procedure is a last ditch effort for the pilot who is scared to

146
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

death and completely disoriented.

It will work, but is certainly not the best method of recovery. It does, however, beat the
devil out of just pulling back on the stick!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000705 130657 msg10587.tex]

147
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

One Main Landing Gear Won’t Extend

Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:20:02

In a message dated 2/16/01 2:22:51 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:
If you get into a situation where the nose and one main gear extends but
the other one won’t, are you better off landing that way, or retracting the
gear (if you can) and landing gear up?
Good Afternoon Eric,
Forty years ago, I would have said that you should retract the rest and land gear up.
That was the recommendation of most authorities, both airline and military in those
days.
Today those same entities generally recommend getting down everything you can and
landing that way.
A friend of mine landed his Travelair with the right main up and the rest down in the
early sixties. He did not notice any difference in sound or feel when he extended the
gear and, of course, those wonderful Beechcraft gear warning devices showed that the
transmission shaft had turned as far as it is supposed to and that the nose gear was not
up.
He landed on a one hundred foot wide hard surface runway. The airplane did not
leave the hard surface even though he had no idea his aircraft was not in a normal
configuration. The right wing looked pretty wrinkled, but when we took the weight off
of it, the wrinkles came out and the wing checked out OK.
Based on that experience and in conformity to most modern thinking, I believe I would
opt for putting down any gear that I could and landing intentionally the way my friend
landed accidentally!
Incidentally, back in those days, many authorities also recommended that gear up land-
ings be done on sod. Unfortunately, many who tried that ended up on their backs or
with the airplane breaking up badly due to structure digging into the ground.
Most authorities now recommend landing on the smoothest hard surface you can find
and I agree with that philosophy.
One more complicating thought.
My friends problem was caused by the same problem that ended up as an AD on the
uplock roller. There was a rash of such happenings at the time.
I heard shortly thereafter of a case where the tower had told a pilot that one of his mains
was not down. The pilot cycled the gear. The gear came down and locked.

148
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

Normally I would recommend that if anything goes wrong with the bonanza gear, that
it not be cycled. Unlike a hydraulic gear, that rarely helps and could easily tear things
up badly.
In the subject case, the uplock roller hung up and would not move out of the way to
allow the gear to extend. The tube which pushes the gear down buckled. When the gear
was cycled, that straightened the tube back out again. The bending motion hardened
the material enough such that the next time the effort was made to extend the gear, the
tube managed to shove it off the roller and down it went!
Seems like something of a million to one shot.
I don’t know if I would want the ends of that bent tube punching around inside the wing
so close to the fuel tank and all, but in that case, it worked.
I would probably land with one gear down and the other up rather than try to cycle it.
I would definitely go for the hard surface.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010216 182002 msg04019.tex]

149
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Partial Panel
Mon, 1 Dec 1997 18:57:28

Good Evening Ernie,

In a message dated 97-12-01 16:25:21 EST, you write:

I had my CFII do that on my last ICC and after covering everything up,
but the ARGUS 3000 I was able to keep control somewhat jerkily. I was
under the hood
so we weren’t sure if the sunlight shadows were helping me, but I was
sweating blood trying to keep things going.

I trust you are not putting flying with a ”complete” partial panel in the same category
as keeping oneself right side up with a GPS or a magnetic compass heading south.
While I do suppose practice with such procedures would definetly provide improved
performance, I rather doubt if anyone could ever attain the proficiency that ALL can
reach with a ”needle, ball and airspeed”.
Remember that up until the middle fifties, we were not allowed to use the Artificial
horizon and the DG during training and for the flight test. As I am sure has been noted
many times, we who did that are a long way from being supermen. It really isn’t that
hard! BUT, it does take some practice.
I think that one of the reasons that partial panel has attained such a bad reputation
is the proliferation of the turn coordinator. It just does not present the information
in a manner allowing comfortable and precise instrument flight. The old style needle
instrument does.
I guess I am beating a dead horse, I seem to be on the losing side.
Happy Aviating to All,
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19971201 185728 msg02585.tex]

150
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

Post Accident Blues

Sun, 05 Dec 1999 12:06:05

In a message dated 12/5/99 10:42:50 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

But strangely, for the first time in my life I find myself not much wanting
to fly. I just can’t seem to shake either the violence of Itzhak’s accident or
its implications for IMC operations.

Good Afternoon John,

That is a natural reaction when we find someone involved in an accident who we feel
had a competency equal to or greater than our own. ”If it happened to him, it could
happen to me!”
The military learned early on that it was important to get the students back in the air
as soon as possible following an unfortunate occurrence.
You need to do likewise!
Remember that Itzhak’s accident is statistical insignificant considering the thousands of
flights that are regularly completed successfully by fat old men like me and thousands
of young and eager new aviators.
The risk is acceptable to most and manageable by all.
I would suggest that you reaffirm your ability to fly the aircraft using whatever source
you feel is the proper one for you to place your reliance on.
I am of the opinion that simpler is better and I don’t care for redundant instrumentation
that is not used in normal flight. I think that one should regularly include whatever turn
instrumentation is installed for true flight purposes, not just to see that it is working.
We do best what we practice!
Instead of making a twenty degree banked turn to the left by the use of your Attitude
gyro, try rolling into that turn with the gyro, then checking your TC or T&B to see
that the turn is at standard rate. If it is not, adjust the bank with the attitude gyro
until the turn rate is at standard rate.
Sure, standard rate isn’t all that important most of the time. The airspace limits
are based on us making a standard rate turn (modified by certain autopilot and flight
guidance limitations) but at the speed we are flying we will stay within the limits almost
all of the time with a nice comfortable twenty degree bank. Using thirty degrees will
always meet the requirements in a Bonanza, even if your are on the redline!
But if we try to always make the turns at standard rate, the TC or T&B will become
part of our normal scan and it will be much easier to use it to pick up a failure of the
attitude gyro or to fly the airplane in the partial panel configuration.

151
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

I would suggest that you try to arrange your instrument panel in a manner so that the
instrument you use for primary heading reference is not powered by the same source
that provides your primary roll control.
In my Bonanza, I have an electric HSI and a pneumatically powered attitude gyro.
My Pacer has the old AN style pneumatic powered Directional Gyro and Artificial
Horizon installed. Since those are from the same source, I really work hard to keep my
electric T&B in my normal scan and I use a handheld GPS mounted on the control
wheel all of the time to monitor my ”track made good.” I feel very comfortable that I
would pick up any failure of the pneumatic system early on.
I would suggest that you do some hood time soon to gain back the confidence that you
need to comfortably use your airplane.
The addition of more instruments and standby systems that have to be checked to see if
they are working does not seem to me to be what you need to increase your confidence
in the suitability of your airplane for your intended use!
One of the things I like best about my standby alternator is that it takes no action on
my part for it to be put in service. If the voltage falls below twenty-six volts for any
reason, the standby comes on the line. When I get the time and things are under control,
I can reduce the load to what the unit is designed to carry. It will stand a substantial
overload for a few minutes at least.
Get back to those Happy Skies!!
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991205 120605 msg11648.tex]

152
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

Recognizing Failed Instruments

Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:19:48

In a message dated 7/5/00 5:58:41 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 [email protected] wrote:

If my primary attitude instrument should fail, I don’t think I would be
flying IFR very long after that failure, so the idea of having two T&Bs
each powered by a separate source seems a little nicer for my ”last ditch”
purposes.
If one of them fails, how do you determine which one it is?

Good Evening Eric,

That is relatively easy.
The only failure mode that I have ever experienced has been for the T&B to refuse to
wiggle. The needle just stays in the center.
A quick and light stab at the rudder will show the wiggle or no wiggle.
The one that wiggles is correct.
Even if a failure occurred such that the needle stuck to one side or the other, the one
that was wiggling would be the one that was working.
I have had failures of artificial horizons where the failed unit continued to show roll
indications, but was showing one wing twenty or thirty degrees low when the aircraft
was actually level.
The indication of a failed TC should be almost as apparent as the indication of a failed
T&B. It wouldn’t wiggle either, though to me, the lack of a wiggle is more prominent
for the T&B since it only reacts to yaw and not to roll.
Most, but not all, T&Bs are more lightly dampened than most TCs. The wiggle then
shows up more prominently.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000705 191948 msg10611.tex]

153
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Recognizing Failed Instruments

Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:49:16

In a message dated 9/19/00 12:26:55 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I am not following you reasoning on this part. It seems that if two AI’s are
not agreeing one knows immediately that he has a problem, and not later
when he’s entered a spiral dive.
It could be we’re getting into a rate vs attitude method of primary instrue-
ment aircraft control? If so it is reasonable to expect many of us who are
taught mostly on aittude to be having some difficulty with the chance over
to rate based flying.
-jts Arlington, TX

Good Morning John,

It is not unusual for an attitude instrument to fail in such a manner that it still moves
but is inaccurate in it’s indication. No doubt that most of us would recognize that
situation as abnormal and consider it to be a problem to be solved.
The next step would be to decide if we were going to use attitude instrumentation, rate
(performance) instrumentation or both to arbitrate.
A complicating condition might be that the pilot has already mentally accepted the
information from the failed instrument as the correct information. That can induce a
state of confusion. It is that state of confusion or incorrect analysis which can lead to
an input to the controls that will aggravate the situation to the degree that there is not
time for recovery.
My search has been for a method that I felt I could latch onto as my last ditch, lay it
all on the line, solution should I ever be in that situation when nothing is adding up.
If I install two artificial horizons and they do not agree, I have to determine which one
has failed.
If I install two T&Bs and they do not agree, I have to determine which one has failed.
In the case of the horizons, if there is another complete panel and possibly a copilot to
monitor that panel, the resolution is relatively easy to determine and accept. But, if I am
by myself and have only the one panel with two attitude instruments, chances are that
it will take some conscious thought to evaluate other instrumentation and determine the
failed instrument. I would probably revert to the performance instruments to evaluate
the condition, but that may well be a reaction based on my past experience.
Carrying this a bit further (Honest, I will get back to the T&Bs later) If our engineers
can design an instrument (or full time autopilot) which absolutely cannot fail we could
use it as that fall back instrument in the manner that flight in the Air Bus is now

154
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

accepted. The Air Bus designers feel that the pilot is the entity most likely to make a
mistake and therefore give the aircraft the right to make the decisions as to how it will
operate. (A simplification, I know, but not too far off the mark) If we have such a ”non
fail” instrument, we would have no need for any backup!
Back to the T&Bs.
If I have two T&Bs mounted side by side, it would be hard to see one without seeing
the other.
Since I have never seen a failure of a T&B where it still wiggled following that failure, I
think the instrument that was still wiggling would intuitively be the working instrument
to almost anyone.
If neither one was wiggling, a tap on the rudder should bring one or the other to life. If
that doesn’t work, it is going to be bad day!
The preceding statements concerning the T&B can be applied to the TC as well. It
is basically the same instrument with similar failure modes and responses. The only
difference is that the gyro is canted so that it responds to both roll and yaw inputs.
I suppose a case could be made that since the TC has a couple of more moving parts
and those parts are slightly more massive, there is a slight statistically greater chance
of failure for the TC than for the T&B.
My complaint about the TC concerns the fact that it does respond to both roll and yaw
along with the presentation that leads so many aviators to use it as a roll control device
instead of a heading control device.
Since it responds to both roll and yaw, you have no way of knowing for sure what it is
telling you without reference to other instrumentation. I prefer the single-mindedness
of the T&B.
I also feel that the concentration and flight control thought should be directly on control
of heading and not on the secondary method of controlling the heading by first controlling
the roll.
There is no question that using roll is how almost all of us control the heading. After we
fly for a few years or even a few hours, that becomes intuitive. The problem becomes
when we are highly stressed. I think that our minds should be programmed to think
heading and not roll. The current rash of incidents and accidents involving aircarrier
aircraft are consistently showing a lack of heading awareness in modern aviators.
Should we go back to teaching IFR flight as a rate based endeavor? I don’t have
strong feelings one way or another, but I do teach a lot of rate technique because the
instrumentation we currently have available to most of us supplies a lot of useful rate
information. We should be trained so the use of that information becomes intuitive and
does not require thought.
How do I fly my airplane? I fly attitude and monitor my flight by observing the rate
instruments. Isn’t that what you do too?

155
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

I do not carry a parachute yet I know that wings do fail. I suppose that there may
become a day when I will have that acceptance of risk concerning instrument failure.
Right now I am at the stage where I feel that providing two T&Bs will give me a level
of confidence in my back up flight capability such that I am willing to fly IFR without
a parachute!
Incidentally, I have not yet installed the second T&B. I had two in my early Bonanzas,
but as the years went by, I gained confidence in the basic reliability of the instrumentation
available and I eliminated the second T&B.
After Itzahk’s accident, I have been rethinking my backup philosophy and realize that
I might well have had the same difficulty as did he.
It appears to me that it is quite likely that he decided things were just not adding up. He
did what he had always told his students to do. Forget everything else and concentrate
on the TC and the heading instrument until you get things sorted out.
That is what I have always told myself to do and that is what I teach my students.
It appears that his TC and HSI had both failed.
I have decided to go back to the duplication of that last ditch instrument.
I know of no other instrument which is as low cost and as easy to interpret failure with
as is the T&B.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000919 104916 msg13721.tex]

156
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

Recognizing Failed Instruments

Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:21:35

In a message dated 9/19/00 12:06:08 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I still wonder why the compass did not bail him out.

Good Afternoon John,

Have you ever tried to determine the heading by just a magnetic compass in anything less
than a relaxed smooth air atmosphere? In the northern hemisphere, I suppose almost
anyone could make a reasonable descent down through a cloud deck by heading south
and carefully monitoring the magnetic compass as long one had time to set things up
while comfortably in the clear and think through the problems about to be encountered.
I, for one, wouldn’t even think of trying to use a magnetic compass, especially those
little things we have in our Bonanzas, as a basis for determining whether my turn was
stopping or accelerating in anything other than such a situation. I doubt if Itzahk’s
state of mind was such that a magnetic compass would have attracted his attention.
It appears that his TC and HSI had both failed.

Yes, that’s what the article said. If the TC fails, does it still wiggle and
therefore be more difficult to isolate failure than a T&B?

As Stuart stated, the T&B is almost certain to fail to a neutral position.

I would say that it is most likely that a TC would also fail to the neutral position. It
has a couple of more pieces to fail than a T&B, but it is still unlikely that a failed TC
would show other than a non rolling, non yawing indication. If it was wiggling, that
would mean that the aircraft was either yawing or rolling and the TC was working.
Itzahk’s TC was likely showing a ”wings level” indication and not wiggling at all.
The failed HSI would be showing a stable heading and reinforcing the ”no turn” indica-
tion of the TC.
A very difficult situation to sort out anytime, let alone right after takeoff into relatively
low weather.

Gads! Has my AI failed? I had forgotten I was in a turn! And then I

thought, am I in a spiral dive?

You did a good job of scanning the instruments and arriving at a proper interpretation
of what the airplane was doing, but as I understand your situation, the autopilot was
flying the airplane and giving you a few moments of relative calm in which to determine
what had failed.
Had the failed gyro been the one which was providing the roll sensing for your autopilot,

157
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

the situation might well have been quite a bit more stressful with less time available for
analysis.

I don’t think I ever caught the TC as it is now located to the left of the
secondary AI and I am not accustomed to scanning that location. Try as
I might I have so far been unsuccessful in bringing it back in my basic
focused scan

-jts Arlington, TX

This is a major problem with any equipment that is intended to help us determine failure
in the instrument being used by either the controlling human pilot or the autopilot. If
we don’t use it regularly, it takes even longer to recognize and correct for a failure.
In the days of yore, when the system required timed turns, even those who were equipped
with that fancy artificial horizon would regularly scan the rate of turn instrument and
adjust the angle of bank so as to maintain that time honored standard rate turn. That
requirement forced us all to bring the rate instrument into our attitude based flight
control scan all of the time.
While a TC is a little more difficult to use than a T&B to determine standard rate, it
will do the job if the flight is well coordinated. The problem is that few of us ever look
at it anymore. That is one of the reasons that I intend to add the large T&B back to
my primary panel. I found that I am not using my small T&B as much as I formerly
did and that bothers me.
You have described the process you went through of checking various instruments to
determine what had failed. Your procedure was fine, but don’t you think it would have
been easier to determine failure of a turn instrument, either a T&B or a TC, than
it was to determine which attitude gyro had failed? You had to look at supporting
instrumentation to make that determination. A side by side comparison of two TCs
or two T&Bs should show intuitively which one was working with no need to evaluate
supporting devices.
All of the above is strictly conjecture. Just like you, I have always managed to pick up
failed horizons by evaluation of other instrumentation. The same goes for failed turn
instruments. Everything else was always working and the guilty party was easy to spot.
It may be that adding any dual instrumentation is overkill and confusing, I am really not
sure, but if I have to make a decision between two instruments as to which of two like
instruments is telling me the truth, I think it would be easier and quicker to determine
the operating instrument when using T&Bs than with any other instrument available.
For What It’s Worth!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000920 192135 msg13780.tex]

158
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

Risk and Additional Pilot

Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:23:41

In a message dated 1/22/00 7:46:24 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Why is that? I would think it would be a safety advantage if nothing else.

If anything happened to you, your wife or other right seat passenger, if
he/she had any flight experience at all (including a Pinch Hitter course),
could probably use all the help he/she could get.

Good Morning Eric,

I suppose it is primarily a matter of philosophy.
The scheduled air carriers in the contiguous 48 have a much better safety record than do
we single engine, single pilot operators. We can add certain components of the air carrier
operating philosophy and we may advantageously affect the resultant safety equation.
I personally think that the most productive additional factor that can be added to any
flight operation is another qualified pilot. I think that will add more safety than a second
engine, deicing, supercharging or anything else you can think of!
BUT, I think the single pilot, single engine combination meets my requirements ade-
quately.
One of the things I like most about the flight control setup of the Bonanza is the ability
to make it a strictly single control cockpit. No control wheel, column or rudder pedals in
the way of my right front seat passenger to interfere with their enjoyment of the flight.
Folding down the rudder pedals and placing the rug on top provides a place for all sorts
of paraphernalia which my most common right seater likes to haul along. If I deprived
her of that storage space, I would hear about it in no uncertain terms!
So, for me and my operation, rudder pedals that had brakes and could no longer be
stored out of sight would be a major detriment. If I were evaluating a purchase, the cost
and trouble of removing them would be included in my deliberations.
Incidentally, there was a time some sixty years ago when it was illegal to have a set of
controls where a non pilot could reach them unless the airplane was under the command
of a licensed flight instructor.
That is why the J-3 Cub, Fairchild 24 and most other airplanes of the era have remov-
able control sticks at the non pilot station. The throw over column of the Beechcraft
Staggerwing and the Bonanza are outgrowths of that regulation.
Times and philosophies do change over the years. Not all of us change with them.
Happy Skies,

159
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000122 122341 msg01291.tex]

160
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

Risk and Comfort Level

Fri, 23 Jun 2000 22:58:11

In a message dated 6/23/00 9:39:08 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob I wonder, did you find this preferable to executing the procedure alone
as you do now in the example to your daughter’s house that you gave?

Good Evening John,

I think the addition of another qualified pilot is the single greatest improvement to
overall safety that can be added to the aircraft.
On an overall basis, I think that a single engine, single instrument source, single electrical
power source, single radio equipped airplane with a second qualified pilot will have a
lower statistical chance of having an accident than the most redundantly equipped single
pilot multiengine aircraft.
My spouse is not a qualified pilot. In fact she does not fly at all and has no interest in
being involved in the operation of the aircraft. She will watch my fuel gauges and tell
me when to switch tanks because she doesn’t like the lack of sound which occurs when
I run a tank dry!
Beyond that, she knits and sleeps.
I have established many procedures and techniques for single pilot operation that I hope
help me toward the level of safety that I could achieve with a multiple person crew.
Is the level of safety adequate?
It meets my level of comfort.
Would I prefer a multiple pilot crew?
Absolutely!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000623 225811 msg10035.tex]

161
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Safety and Design Philosophy

Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:23:27

In a message dated 7/4/00 12:12:35 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Old Bob, with the apology of repeating myself, this is the part I don’t
understand why ... why this approach? Why is it inherently superior to
the way Eric and I were taught? I do understand what it is that you have
said and it would help me to understand the why.

Good Morning John,

While I hope I have answered your question adequately in other posts, there is one more
view point I might add.
There currently rages an argument as to whether we should make a machine that the
operator cannot possibly be injured using or whether we should make a more efficient
machine which requires training to be able to avoid operator injury. (Fortunately or
unfortunately, our present litigious society drives us toward the former, possibly less
efficient, system.)
One of the prime examples is the AirBus philosophy. The airplane is designed with the
idea of giving the pilot as little manual capability as possible. Redundancy is rampant.
In order for the pilot to directly fly the airplane without the autopilot being involved
at all, so many systems have to be deactivated that the aircraft approaches a dangerous
configuration.
The theory is that the human is more fallible than the machine so we must not let the
man make the decision as long as the machine is operating.
The Boeing philosophy is a little different. They agree that the machine is less likely
to make a mistake, but allow the pilot (operator) to revert to manual while the safety
devices are still engaged.
The decision as to what and how much automation to use is left to the operator.
The argument over what is prime, attitude information via an attitude indicator or
attitude information by the operator’s analysis of the rate instruments is a facet of that
same philosophy. If you assume that machines will always be better than humans, you
load the aircraft with multiple redundant attitude devices. To carry that argument
further, you would need at least three attitude instruments and they would have to
contain a device that could automatically determine if one has failed by some sort of a
comparison system. We had such devices on the early autoland autopilots.
You will note that when those who have two attitude indicators are asked how they
can tell which one is working properly in the case of a disagreement, they will refer to
indications on a rate instrument, usually some sort of heading indicator, to make the
decision. So they may think they are using a redundant device when they are really

162
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

only providing a back up which can be used AFTER they have discovered a failure by
monitoring a rate instrument.
One more emphasis on a point I tried to make earlier, but which seems to have been
disregarded by all.
Having the wings level does not guarantee the aircraft is not turning. That will only be
true if the aircraft is in trim and all components are working properly.
We all realize that coordinated flight is almost always more comfortable and more effi-
cient than uncoordinated flight.
Stopping the turn is paramount in gaining control of the aircraft.
Stopping the turn by leveling the wings MAY work.
Stopping the turn by centering the Turn Needle always works.
Hope that helps!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/20000705 112327 msg10570.tex]

163
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

See and Avoid

Sun, 21 May 2000 12:03:19

In a message dated 5/21/00 1:15:13 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Good morning? Bob, does the 295 display obstructions and their eleva-
tions? I was informed yesterday that it (and the 195) does not? I now
wonder does the Skymap IIIc?
I was stunned by this as it is one of the most important features to me on
the AirMap 100 (Jeppesen database). I cannot image flying direct without
this capability. Airways, no problem ... but direct it is a must for me.

Good Morning John,

I see that your question concerning the 295 has been adequately answered by others,
however, I find your comment concerning going direct very interesting.
I suppose my attitude is at least partially a result of so many years of flying before
all those electronic aids were developed, but I don’t think I would place an awful lot
of reliance on any information source to keep me clear of obstacles at low altitudes (a
relative term of course) and at IFR altitudes I rely on the Jeppesen sector altitudes.
If I am flying down where TV towers and their supporting wires are likely to be sprouting,
I want adequate visibility so that I can ’see and avoid.’ Any database (including the
sectional charts) that shows the towers is likely to be at least six months old when I am
using it.
Towers can sprout a lot faster than that!
Notams help, but it is very difficult to check all of the low altitude information for a
trip of any appreciable length.
I know of very few obstacles that are more than 2000 feet AG, so my rough rule of thumb
is to tell any passengers that they should be watching for towers as well as airplanes
anytime we are flying at less than 3000 AG. If I am solo, I try to remind myself to add
that factor to my exterior scan for traffic.
I guess what I am saying is that exterior vigilance is the only way to avoid hitting things
anytime we are flying in visual conditions. I like having the extra information about
known obstacles readily available whether it is provided by a sectional, Jepp chart or
electronic device. I would like to have it on my moving map, but it is never something
to be counted on!
Happy Skies.
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000521 120319 msg08421.tex]

164
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

See and Avoid

Sun, 21 May 2000 13:45:47

In a message dated 5/21/00 11:24:04 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob,
TV/Radio towers are a problem. I minimize the problem by flying IFR ”I
follow roads” method. Less chance of a tower sprouting up directly over
a highway perhaps. Moving maps that have highways depicted is a great
feature.

Good Afternoon BG Wells,

That helps, but I have seen supporting wires that crossed a major highway. It is the
wires that worry me most. They are very difficult to see and I know of no way to spot
them other than to locate the tower and then figure the wires are out at around a forty-
five degree angle. They are usually steeper than that, but if I stay the same distance
from the tower as it is high, the odds are good that I will miss the wires. When I was
a student, my instructor told me that I should stay down in the valleys and away from
high points when flying in marginal weather. He said that radio towers (this was before
TV) were always placed on high spots and you didn’t need to worry about towers when
flying along the road in the bottom of a valley. It was only a couple of years later that
I was delivering a J-3 to a customer in northern Wisconsin. While following a highway
down a valley in marginal weather, I came upon a radio tower that was just a couple of
hundred feet from the road and right down in a valley between some hills that were at
least three or four hundred feet high. So much for the ”towers are always on the hills”
theory!
Our California friends are all familiar with the feeling of tranquility they occasionally
have when buzzing merrily along up and down the coast on top of all the clouds. It is
always something of a shock when a tower is observed poking it’s way above those nice
smooth cloud decks. Even more unnerving is to be flying at 3500 feet northeast bound
VFR on top just east of Columbia, Missouri and suddenly see those two TV towers
sticking out the top of a completely flat and tranquil overcast.
Knowledge of their position is great, but there is nothing quite as good as looking out
the window.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000521 134547 msg08427.tex]

165
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Single Verses Twin

Fri, 28 Jan 2000 23:54:43

In a message dated 1/28/00 10:29:09 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Is a twin engine airplane twice as likeley to loose a engine as a single engine

airplane ?

Good Evening BG,

Do we wish to discuss this factually or facetiously?
If we only consider failures caused by problems internal to the engine, I would say that
a twin has twice the probability of failure as a single. However, most failures are caused
by other factors. Fuel starvation, either lack of, or mismanagement thereof, is a large
issue. What about improper operation of the engine and it’s controls?
Other than just the number of engines, are there differences in the way multiengine
pilots operate?
Does the added complexity of the multiengine airplane lead to more errors of operation?
If more errors do occur, do they lead to incidents or accidents?
Looks like a couple of months worth of arguments to me!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000128 235443 msg01981.tex]

166
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

Standby Equipment
Sat, 1 Jul 2000 04:52:13

In a message dated 7/1/00 2:32:13 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I am a bit worried when a pilot would rely on a piece of electronic equipment

to get him out of a partial panel situation. This is separate from having a
separate standby source for air or electricity.

Good Morning Dirk,

No argument at all from me!
I can’t understand why all pilots don’t maintain a good partial panel capability. The
fact is, I think one of the reasons so few do maintain that capability is the lack of honesty
of the TC.
BUT, that doesn’t mean we should not consider what other equipment IS capable of
doing.
Reliance is one thing, using what you have is another.
When we are totally confused and have no idea what is going on about us, it would be
nice if there was something that might save our tails.
There is a good possibility that JFK, Jr. may have been OK if he had been flying a
sixties vintage Mooney with a PC unit. It would work best if it were on all of the time
the way the Mooney was set up. It is a lot tougher to activate it once you are in trouble.
I know that we all think that we will never be in that sort of a situation. However, it
has happened to very experienced pilots as well as some young folks who are still on
that steep learning curve!
The PC and Constant Copilot idea never caught on with the flying public and maybe
that is just as well. I don’t know.
I have never been in a situation where my T&B failed during a critical time. I have
trained myself to have such extreme confidence in that instrument, that if it failed and
I didn’t catch the failure, I might lose it as easy as JFK did.
One of the few things I THINK I have learned is: It can happen to me!
I like to keep things simple. That is not just to reduce the chance of a pilot induced
error. Simple is also, generally, cheaper.
The answer that I like best is to have two T&Bs, each powered by a different source,
but that doesn’t mean I won’t fly with less!
Flying is still a calculated risk.

167
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000701 045213 msg10420.tex]

168
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

Stopping The Turn with a T&B

Sun, 2 Jul 2000 00:22:35

In a message dated 7/1/00 1:00:22 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

So, level the little airplane with the ailerons and kick the ball into the
center and you should be going straight ahead. Then all you have to do is
monitor the altimeter and VSI to make sure you’re level.

Good Evening Eric,

Lot’s of things will work to some degree. The technique you describe obviously works
for you. That’s fine, but I think your method is backwards.
I teach a different philosophy. It my thought that the rudder should be primary for
stopping the turn and the aileron should be used to attain coordinated flight. That
means that you stomp on the rudder to put the TC or the T&B in the center of the
instrument and you use the aileron to maintain coordination or put the ball in the
middle. I want the student, regardless of his/her experience, to be thinking ’turn’. Not
wings level. I could not care less whether the wings are level. What I want to see is the
turn stopped. Coordinated or not the turn should be stopped!!
No turn, no graveyard spiral, no problem.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000702 002235 msg10441.tex]

169
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

T&B Verses Turn Coordinator Verses AI

Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:01:31

In a message dated 2/1/01 10:22:31 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

However, for most pilots, the AI will give more information in a quicker
manner than needle, ball and airspeed.
Bob, how about an electric AI and your battery operated turn needle
mounted on the glare shield?

Good Morning Hal,

I consider the two comments above to address totally different situations.
The second one first.
The battery powered T&B is an effort to handle that situation where everything goes
black at once. A full and sudden electrical failure in an all electric airplane. A fairly
direct and simple problem, generally easy to handle if it occurs under good flight con-
ditions. If not, then the potential for the other situation is there!
The first!
That is more a matter of HOW we fly instruments rather than what we use TO fly
instruments.
First, I have no data or statistical information to back up the following theory, it is
merely a result of my observations over the last twenty or thirty years.
I perceive more instances of airplanes being lost due to an inability of the pilot to operate
the aircraft in those years than I remember in the first half of my flying career.
Those airplanes that were lost tended to be much better equipped and have had a greater
amount of redundancy in both number of instruments and sources of power than was
common earlier.
Prior to 1954, all applicants for an instrument rating could be required to fly the entire
flight check without the benefit of any artificial horizon or directional gyro. The inspector
could allow the use of those instruments for certain portions of the approach if the aircraft
was so equipped and he/she so desired.
After that time, the ”full” panel was allowed, but ”partial” panel was still considered
a very important skill and was given considerable attention throughout the students
training.
The rules said that all turns during an instrument approach must be made at standard
rate or thirty degrees of bank, whichever came first. (I think that is still true today, but
someone will tell me if I am wrong.) Consequently, students were taught to roll into

170
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

some suggested angle of bank and then to check the turn needle to see if standard rate
was being maintained.
Since the rate of turn instrument was such an integral device in the establishment of
every turn, it was generally given a position on the panel where it was easy to include
in the basic IFR scan.
Over the years that abomination of a rate instrument called the Turn Coordinator was
introduced and the emphasis on maintaining a standard rate turn was replaced with an
emphasis on maintaining some arbitrary constant angle of bank.
I have no idea if the TC contributed to the change or not. Maybe it was just coincidence,
but it always seemed to me that the damping characteristics of the T&C made it less
useful as a means of establishing standard rate. But that is really a whole ’nother
argument.
In any case, the rate of turn instrument began to be regarded as something to use if
the attitude gyro failed rather than something to be used in normal flight to monitor
whether or not the attitude instrument was providing proper guidance.
To my way of thinking, that was when the seeds were sown.
We are now reaping the harvest.
If the rate instrument (be it one of those terrible TCs or the beautiful and reliable
T&B) is included in the normal instrument scan, any irrational behavior of the attitude
instrument is much easier to spot early enough to effect an appropriate realignment of
the instrument scan to preclude the operator losing control of the aircraft.
The issue, as I see it, is not so much of what instrument is used as a backup for what
other device, but as to how that instrument is integrated into the operation of the
aircraft.
First, if one continues to include the turn instrument in his/her scan to determine
whether or not flight is being conducted utilizing standard rate turns, that serves to de-
velop a scan that comfortably and effortlessly aids in constant evaluation of the attitude
instruments.
Secondarily, it allows the operator to maintain a comfortable proficiency in the use of
the rate of turn instrument.
In my own experience, I found that after I took my T&B off the floating panel and
placed it immediately to the right of my rate of climb, I tended to not use it to verify
that I was using standard rate turns as much as I should.
I also used a 2 1/4 inch instrument to save space.
I think that was a mistake as well.
From what I have read of the NTSB’s investigation of Dr. Jacoby’s accident, it appears
that his attitude gyro was working just fine.

171
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

The problem appears to have been a failed TC and a failed HSI.

Itzahk was a well trained and experienced pilot. While I never flew with him, those
who have all verified his competency. It is likely that his TC had been out of service for
some time without his having noticed it. Considering where my T&B was located in my
center panel, I figured that could happen to me just as easily as it happened to him.
That is why I want whatever instrument I am going to rely on for my last ditch effort
to be one that I also use every time I fly the airplane, not just something that I will
switch to when the primary attitude gyro fails.
After Itzahk’s accident, I decided to move my little T&B up to the spot where Beech
had the clock and put a standard sized T&B two instrument spaces to the left of the
primary heading indicator which places it directly under the 2 1/4 inch instrument.
If I don’t find myself using it all of the time as a monitor in that position, I will move
it back to the position where I think it really belongs, immediately to the left of the
heading indicator.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010202 110131 msg02562.tex]

172
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

Throttle Stuck Open

Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:18:30

In a message dated 8/16/00 11:14:33 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Pilot said he could not get throttle to close on descent. Engine manifold
pressure was at 25” (possibly throttle cable seperated) , brought rpms
down, slowed enough to get flaps down. Still too fast, he shut engine down
prior to landing, and landed short of runway. Landed to right of ILS &
MIRL eqpt. to avoid further damage. Night flight, local.
CER

Good Afternoon CER,

I know it’s too late for your friend, but if it happens to anyone else, you should consider
just adjusting the power by using the mixture control. The engine may or may not run
real smooth, but it should be controllable and the power will be there if you need it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000816 161830 msg12229.tex]

173
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Use of GPS as Backup Instrumentation

Sat, 4 Mar 2000 16:22:55

Good Afternoon All,

I took a friend along as a safety pilot yesterday and experimented with using the Garmin
GPSMAP 295 as an instrument to keep the airplane right side up.
It worked better than I thought it might!
The way we did it was as follows.
I took along a table cloth which I draped over my head so that I could see nothing but
the GPS 295. I blocked out all of the instrument panel.
The idea was to see if I could keep the thing from getting into a graveyard spiral if the
airplane was in good trim for level flight when the instruments were lost.
We set up for about a 170 knot cruise at 6500 feet. I got under the table cloth and the
airplane was put into a well developed graveyard spiral to the right. I was given the
airplane and did nothing with the pitch, I just tried to stop the turn and let the airspeed
and altitude do what came naturally. That was relatively easy except that I wandered
a bit from side to side while trying to hold a constant heading. The capability to hold a
heading became better as I practiced. There was no difficulty getting out of the spiral
and the speed never exceeded the redline. We came nowhere near close to stall. I must
have applied some pitch up force during the recovery, even though I was trying to stay
neutral, as we ended up at about 7500 feet after straight flight was established. I then
practiced making 90 and 180 degree turns. We tried the same thing to the left with
similar results. I then set the 295 up to show altitude as well as the heading and messed
around holding both altitude and heading via the 295. Not real smooth, but workable.
I would imagine that with some practice it could be a fairly practical thing to do.
Now, this was all strictly in good weather where I was able to be relaxed and had nothing
else to do except keep the airplane right side up. I didn’t have to talk to anyone or worry
about hitting anything. I don’t imagine it would be so easy to do for real.
I also tried the same thing using the track indication from my panel mount GPS. Even
though the response to heading change was faster with the panel mount, I found it quite
a bit easier to keep the airplane under control using the HSI style presentation on the
295. I would imagine that is because of the familiarity I have with that style of heading
presentation.
I intend to make the same experiment in a slower, less slippery airplane.
I would be very interested in hearing how anyone else has made out trying the same
thing!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob

174
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

[ARTICLES/20000304 162255 msg04179.tex]

175
1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Verifying Instrument Operation

Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:54:36

In a message dated 2/2/01 12:05:47 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:
FWIW, I was taught to test the T&B (or TC) while taxiing before any
flight where IMC is anticipated by taxiing left and right and observing the
movement on the T&B.
Regards,
Howard
Good Afternoon Howard
Excellent and proper technique.
I would imagine that Itzhak taught that as well.
Unfortunately, we all, every now and then, don’t do that which we ”Always Do”!
There is nothing like regular and every day use of the back up equipment (and practice
in it’s use) to assure that it will be available when we need it.
That is why I feel the use of the turn instrument, regardless of type, should be a normal
part of our instrument flight, not just considered as back up equipment.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010202 135436 msg02580.tex]

176
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.3. AIRMAN-SAFETY

Water in Static System and Instrument Failure

Wed, 7 Feb 2001 00:14:07

In a message dated 2/6/01 7:17:34 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:
How did Itzhak get water in his system? (if he did at all) Why is there a
drain? condensation only?
Good Evening Paul,
I am not sure that he did have water in his static system.
I do think that the most likely way for water to get into the static system is via con-
densation, providing a drain for service is a good idea and it should be relatively easy
to find! It would take quite a bit of water in my static system before that water would
interfere with the indications on the altimeter or airspeed. The hose descending down
to the bolt which plugs the tube is long enough to act as a sump that would hold three
or four CCs of fluid before it blocked anything. In the eleven years I have owned this
airplane, I have never removed the bolt as there has never been any fluid in the sump.
It has been some time since I read the NTSB report for Itzahk’s accident. My recollection
could be way off base, but I believe he just said that he thought he might have gotten
water in the system without specifying what system he was talking about.
I don’t know how he would know that there was water in the static system even if there
was.
On top of that, a mere loss of airspeed or altimetry should not have been difficult to
handle for a pilot of his experience and training.
My recollection is that he thought his attitude gyro had failed and that it was most
likely working normally.
He evidently relied on what he thought was his most reliable instrument, the TC and
backed it up by checking his primary directional aid, the HSI.
If they had both failed, which seems likely as I read the report, he had an almost
unfathomable problem.
His accident is why I want to go back to carrying two T&Bs.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010207 001407 msg03002.tex]

177
1.4. AIRMAN-TAKEOFF CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

1.4 AIRMAN-TAKEOFF

178
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.4. AIRMAN-TAKEOFF

Adverse Yaw Induced By the Differential Action of the Aileron

Wed, 31 May 2000 10:07:12

In a message dated 5/30/00 10:58:09 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

There is a whole ’nother factor here which I hesitate to bring up, but proper
use of the aileron to take advantage of the drag produced by differential
action of the aileron will aid tremendously in holding almost any aileron
equipped airplane straight. Too bad it is no longer emphasized in training
and rarely used by Bonanza pilots.
Old Bob,
Would you please elaborate on the above statement? Thanks

Good Morning Will,

I was referring to that phenomenon often referred to by flight instructors as the ”Adverse
yaw induced by the differential action of the aileron.”
Right aileron induces a yaw to the left and vice versa. A natural and intuitive reaction
for all of we ’kiddie car to automobile’ trained aviators is to apply right aileron to help
steer the airplane f we run out of right rudder. That right aileron will make the airplane
turn to the left and just make a bad situation worse. The correct thing to do is to input
left aileron. We call that ”Advantageous use of the adverse yaw” when flying the Twin
Beech and other aircraft which have relatively light rudder authority and strong ailerons
that have not yet been screwed up by the engineers so as to reduce the yaw induced by
the differential action of the aileron.
Spoiler equipped airplanes react differently and the strength of the ’yaw’ steering force
is dependent on many things, so it takes some investigation to decide when and how to
best use the force.
I wrote an article on this some years ago which was published in our Twin Beech Society
newsletter. Join the Twin Beech Society and we will send you the back issues which
contain that, along with other boring stuff about Twin Beeches and Staggerwings. Or,
better yet, join us in Tullahoma, Tennessee October 18th through the 22nd for the
Staggerwing Museum Foundation and Twin Beech Society annual Convention. This
year it is being called a Beech Party. Owners and enthusiasts of all aircraft produced
by Beechcraft Aircraft Corporation are cordially invited to attend.
I could send you a copy of the article on Adverse Yaw via E-mail if you would like.
Just let me know.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob

179
1.4. AIRMAN-TAKEOFF CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

[here is the article]

ADVANTAGEOUS USE OF ADVERSE YAW
July 10, 1997
This discussion has to do with positioning the airplane flight controls to aid in the
directional control of the aircraft while on the earths surface (ground or water).
Most of us were initially introduced to the effects of adverse yaw in conjunction with
making a coordinated airborne turn in an airplane. The airplane turns by being in a
bank. To bank the airplane one would normally input aileron in the direction of the
desired turn. Lo and behold that old nemesis of coordination, ”adverse yaw induced by
the differential action of the ailerons,” swung the nose in the wrong direction and we
were taught to apply rudder with the aileron in the direction of turn to counter that
yaw during the time the aileron was displaced from neutral.
The next time the yaw effect was introduced was when we were taught crosswind takeoff
and landings. Most instructors would tell us we should use aileron into the wind so as
to ”keep the wing down.” While that is certainly a desirable result, it is not the most
important aspect of such control usage in all of our airplanes. In many older aircraft it
tends to be the most effective force available for good directional control while on the
ground.
Remember the downward displaced aileron increases the lift and therefore increases
the drag of that wing, the upward displaced aileron decreases the lift and therefore
decreases the drag. It is the change in induced drag from the production of lift that is
most important and not the profile drag of the displaced surface. (The profile drag can
be a major force at times, but that is another subject.)
Holding the aileron into the wind (for whatever reason) takes pretty good care of di-
rectional control in the crosswind situation, but many pilots don’t seem to be aware of
the benefit to be realized by using the yaw in our favor while operating into the wind
or nearly into the wind. If you are rolling down the runway and running out of right
rudder, how many of you would think of applying LEFT aileron? It is definitely not
intuitive and yet it is the proper response in aileron equipped aircraft. (Airplanes using
spoilers for all or part of their roll control will react differently.)
Judicious use of this steering force may be used anytime you are having directional
control problems with rudder alone. It works in Bonanzas, Barons and Cessna 180s as
well as older aircraft. The action might not be as great, but it still helps. With the right
hand rotation of our propellers in this country, we tend to run out of right rudder more
often than left, but the effect is there in either case.
It is not unusual for an instructor to tell a student that in a crosswind situation, full
aileron should be applied into the wind and then as the takeoff roll commences, the
aileron input should be reduced to a more moderate amount. That procedure is not a
bad one for many aircraft, but if it is used in a Fairchild 24 with a right crosswind, you
may run out of right rudder before any appreciable speed has built up! The Fairchild has

180
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.4. AIRMAN-TAKEOFF

such a strong yaw induced by the differential action of the ailerons that it will overpower
the effect of the rudder,
While instructing in the Beech model 18, I have noted during takeoffs with a slight right
crosswind, the pilot will often start off with a pretty good amount of aileron into the wind
and as the airplane builds up speed, he (or she) finds quite a bit of right rudder necessary.
This usually happens about the time the tail is being raised and the gyroscopic effects
of the propellers are being added to the left turning force. The instinctive reaction of
most people is to put that steering wheel further to the right which gives even more left
turning force and, of course, more right rudder is needed. BAD SCENE. The problem
was too much right aileron to start with. We, as a group, are so used to turning the
steering wheels of our ground bound vehicles in the direction we wish to turn, that it
takes a lot of guts the first time to lay in (in this case) the LEFT aileron. Suffice it to
say that anytime the aileron and the rudder are heavily displaced in the same direction,
something is wrong!
A technique that I have used to demonstrate the effectiveness of adverse yaw steering is
to pick a nice day, preferably with 12 to 15 knots of wind right down a nice wide and long
runway, with no obstacles close by, and after obtaining a ground speed of 25 or 30 knots,
throttle back to maintain that ground speed, then have the student roll in full aileron
to the right and note the turning tendency to the left. As soon as the effect is apparent,
full left aileron is applied and, of course, the airplane returns to the straight and narrow.
(Caution must be used in tailwheel equipped airplanes to prevent the development of
a ground loop situation.) The Twin Beech, DC-3, Stearman, Staggerwing and other
airplanes of that era are the ones that show off the best during this demo, (the Fairchild
24 is the best of all) but I have also used it effectively in the DC-6 and DC-7 and to
a lesser degree in the Boeing 720, (The Boeing 727 uses a much greater amount of
spoiler in relation to the aileron and it steers like a car on the ground, it is important
to understand the characteristics of the airplane you are flying.)
In applying the aileron for directional control it should be used deliberately and with
planning. It is not intuitive for most of us and needs to be thought about.
If you are losing the airplane, certainly go ahead and make a rapid input to ”save the
day” but don’t fan the stick or wheel back and forth as you would the rudder, use the
aileron as a major directional force to be increased or decreased deliberately. Use the
rudder as a trimming device and fan it all you want!
Just remember, right aileron will steer the airplane to the left and left aileron will take
it to the right.
One instructor with whom I discussed this says he tells the students to steer toward the
crash!
What are the disadvantages of using adverse yaw for directional control?
Well, nothing is free. It causes drag, that is how it steers, by holding back on one wing.
On some airplanes in critical performance situations it can be a significant factor.

181
1.4. AIRMAN-TAKEOFF CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Some jet transition programs teach their students to use little or NO aileron into the
wind because it may cause enough drag so that the aircraft will not meet the performance
numbers listed on the chart.
Occasionally you might note a maximum demonstrated crosswind figure that seems
awfully low. You may even have experience that the airplane is relatively easy to handle
in higher winds.
The limit may have been established because the stronger winds weren’t available for
the test.
At other times it was established because the test pilots found that with the published
wind, the aircraft was at the limit of its aerodynamic control capability.
Another possibility is that the deterioration of acceleration using aggressive crosswind
control was so great that the takeoff performance was severely impacted and the decision
was made to limit the amount of crosswind that the airplane should be operated in so
as to retain better numbers to publish in the sales brochures!
That still doesn’t make it illegal to exceed the demonstrated crosswind numbers, but
it does emphasize the point that you must understand where they came from and,
especially on the modern spoiler equipped aircraft, what the drag and directional control
results of maximum control usage will be.
Most of the modern jet aircraft use some amount of spoiler for roll control. Depending
on the mix between aileron and spoiler input while in the takeoff configuration, the
directional advantage of using aileron opposite to the turn may be lost and, in some
cases, the aircraft will steer like a car.
Another less sophisticated problem occurs on soft fields. If the surface is soft enough
that the wheels are sinking in and there is some difficulty in getting the airplane rolling,
it’s possible that the additional down load (or lack of lift) on the wing with the upward
deflected aileron may cause the wheel on that side to develop considerable additional
drag and give the aircraft a turning moment in the wrong direction!
Even on a hard surface there will be some amount of increased rolling friction due to
the higher load on that wheel.
I realize that this is kind of a quick overview of only one area of control use on the ground.
What about sailing a seaplane up to a pier? What about taxiing, taking off or landing
any aircraft on glare ice? What about the effect of the controls in a downwind situation?
All of these subjects and many more are worthy of further discussion. Perhaps we can
do so at another time.
Bob Siegfried
Phone: 630 985-8502 FAX: 630 985-0340
DIFFERENTIAL POWER
By Bob Siegfried

182
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.4. AIRMAN-TAKEOFF

Today we would like to talk about a technique that might be a little controversial –
differential power for directional control during a landing roll out.
This is a technique that was used extensively in the thirties and forties by Twin Beech
and DC-3 pilots but which fell into disfavor later on.
In a strong crosswind, a pilot would carry zero-thrust or just a little more power on both
engines until about 10 or 20 feet in the air, and then at the time he would normally close
both throttles, leave the upwind power alone and slowly close the downwind throttle.
It seems to work best to shoot for a tail-low wheel landing. The tailwheel should be a
foot or less in the air at touchdown and then a little ”rock up” of the tail used just after
touch down and before lowering the tail wheel to the ground.
The power should be adjusted during the rollout to about the amount that would be
carried to properly taxi in the amount of crosswind present.
Some increase in power may be necessary after touchdown, but throttle input should be
steady and deliberate and not jockeyed back and forth. Use sufficient power so that the
rudders are free and available for minor directional corrections.
Of course, FULL aileron should be held into the wind.
You will find that very little if any additional runway is used with this procedure. There
is still a fair amount of drag produced by the aileron input into the wind (the adverse
yaw effect) and by the idling downwind engine. The upwind engine is developing a
forward thrust, but it is being used mainly to counter the turning force induced by the
wind blowing against the side of the aircraft and that seems to create sufficient drag
such that the overall deceleration forces are still quite good.
What are the disadvantages?
Well, for one thing, if the differential power is introduced too early you will be turning
the attempted landing into a single engine approach!
The differential power should be used for correction primarily on the ground, not in the
air.
The reason for initiating the asymmetry in the air is to get a little feel for what it is
going to take and to have the engine slightly ”spooled up” so as to get a faster response
rate from that engine if additional power is necessary.
There might also be a tendency to allow the downwind engine to drop a little when the
power is reduced, thus setting up a potential for a downwind drift.
Remember that the airplane will perform and handle better on single engine with the
dead engine carried a little high. The same philosophy applies during this procedure.
Carry the downwind engine a little high.
Most instructors agree that during initial multi-engine training it is best to teach the use
of the engines together at equal power on both to avoid the tendency to fight the engine

183
1.4. AIRMAN-TAKEOFF CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

with brakes, etc. Later in the training cycle, differential power for taxiing is introduced,
and hopefully the trainee will eventually be able to maneuver the aircraft in most any
wind condition without the use of brakes.
The ”engine only, no brakes” taxiing technique should be second nature and thoroughly
understood before differential power is used in the landing procedure.
The differential power may also be used in very strong crosswind conditions for takeoff,
but only while the aircraft is on the ground. By fifty or sixty knots the engines should
be at equal power.
If any of you have any further insight into the advantages or pitfalls of these techniques,
please let us hear from you. The more input we have, the better off we all are.
Thanks for listening.
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/20000531 100712 msg08922.tex]

184
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.4. AIRMAN-TAKEOFF

Takeoff in an A36
Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:56:40

In a message dated 6/8/00 8:59:08 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

My procedure is to lock brakes, run up to full power, release and rotate

about 75 knots. The plane is a TNIO 550 A-36. I have not tried to use
flaps on takeoff.
A couple of the departures have not cleared the trees by enough to satisfy
me.
Any ideas?

Good Morning Ed,

You haven’t mentioned your weight. The 36 has a rather large allowable useful load so
the Vx and Vy will vary quite a bit from light to heavy.
I don’t have the data for the 36 available to me, but as a general rule you should
determine the Vx for the configuration chosen, then rotate at a speed that would allow
you to reach Vx immediately at lift off. Depending on the rate of acceleration, that is
about three to five knots below Vx.
If your airplane has the twenty-eight volt electrical system. I would recommend that the
wheels be stowed in the wells as soon as you are solidly airborne. With a fourteen volt
system, it might be advisable to leave the gear down until the obstacle is cleared. That
is dependent on how far the obstacle is from the liftoff point. At ninety knots ground
speed, and with a low voltage system, you will travel about 2000 feet while the gear is
in transit. About 700 feet with the 28 volt setup.
The gear develops more drag while in transit than it does extended, but it is a lot less
drag when hidden in the wells.
The performance available can be dug out of the charts if you have them available or,
you can find out for yourself!
Flaps will reduce the speed at which Vx and Vy occur. Whether they will aid in clearing
an obstacle is dependent on the amount of power available above that needed to maintain
level flight in the takeoff configuration, the distance to the obstacle and other such data.
I would suggest that you try to locate another airport that is about the same height
above sea level and with a much longer runway.
Load the airplane to the average conditions at which you expect to operate and do some
tests. Try it with different amounts of flap and with the gear down and with it retracted
early. Try to note your altitude at specific distances along the takeoff path.
Try some speeds a couple of knots lower than the calculated speeds and a couple of
knots above those speeds. Try it at both Vx and Vy

185
1.4. AIRMAN-TAKEOFF CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Remember, the best rate of climb will always occur with the flaps and the gear retracted.
Whether the angle of climb will be better with flaps or clean is dependent on the wind,
load and power available.
I like to use ten degrees of flap in most average load and average obstacle conditions. I
have used as much as full flap when lightly loaded and in a high drag surface condition
such as tall grass.
At least, it’s an excuse to go fly the airplane!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000608 105640 msg09333.tex]

186
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.4. AIRMAN-TAKEOFF

Use of Flaps
Fri, 27 Aug 1999 19:33:25

FENTRESS,JIM P. (HP-FtCollins,ex1) wrote:

Which makes me wonder, what on earth were the flaps doing in the ”down”
position on takeoff, if not from a T&G?
I don’t think in my POH, or in the Flying the Beech Bonanza book, is
there any situation with a reason to take off with flaps down. I understand
from other reading that one *can* set the flaps to partial and obtain some
benefit, but in general they mostly increase drag...
Good Afternoon Jim,
This is somewhat off the subject, but there are times where the use of flap for takeoff
can be useful which are not listed in anybodys POH. Whether or not the flaps could
be useful is dependent on many things, some of which are the length of takeoff surface
available, the drag produced by rolling on that surface and the power available to fly
the aircraft.
Jimmy Doolittle used full flap on his B-25s for the takeoff from the aircraft carrier when
he bombed Tokyo.
One of the major carriers of the US had a DC-6B stuck in the mud of a small sod field
some years ago and their engineering department provided the crew instruction as to
how to get that aircraft out which called for a full flap takeoff. The airplane was airborne
in less than 800 feet!
The airplane had fifty gallons in each of the four main tanks and was very light, but it
worked like a charm.
I had occasion some thirty years ago to do some test flying on a DC-3 where we were
determining minimum unstick speeds at various weights and full flap was one of the
configurations investigated. We had that hummer airborne at around fifty knots, it was
scary but it flew!
I have found that I have never had a Cessna 180 or 185 so badly stuck in the mud
that I could not get it moving by using full flaps and full power. As it gets moving the
flaps can be retracted somewhat, but unless it is very heavy or at an altitude where the
power is limited, the thing will get off in a reasonable distance even with the full flap
still extended.
I think that if I was faced with a situation where the surface was marginal, either due
to roughness or high drag and I had a major surplus of power, I might at least consider
the use of full flap for takeoff, even in a Bonanza!
As is true of so many things in aviation, IT DEPENDS!
Happy Skies,

187
1.4. AIRMAN-TAKEOFF CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990827 193325 msg07407.tex]

188
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.4. AIRMAN-TAKEOFF

Use of Flaps
Sun, 23 Jan 2000 02:15:37

In a message dated 1/23/00 12:53:19 AM Central Standard Time, Ernie [email protected]

writes:
BTW, you may not get many answers on this since some have very strong
feelings that using flaps on take-off is illegal.
Good Morning Ernie,
Just to provide an argument! A comment or two.
The FARs are permissive. If it is not prohibited, it is legal. That doesn’t mean that one
could not be charged as ’careless and reckless’ if a bad call results in an incident!
I don’t see anywhere in any of my manuals that says that I cannot use flaps for take-
off! That includes full flaps if my analysis of the situation determines that full flap is
appropriate for the task at hand.
The desirability of flap is dependent at least on the amount of power available, the length
of the takeoff surface, the condition of that surface and the weight of the aircraft. There
are likely other factors that should be considered, but It is too late at night or too early
in the morning for me to think of them just now.
When might full flap be desirable? If the weight is light and the power available high,
full flap may provide the shortest ground run on a hard surface or be the only way to
get airborne on a muddy surface.
There are other times when the power is low (very high altitude) and the load sufficiently
high that the airplane will not fly at all with the flaps out, but would fly with a long
enough run if the flaps were up.
The highest rate of climb available at any weight or power combination will be with
the flaps up, but the best angle may be better with some flaps extended, under certain
power and weight conditions.
It depends!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000123 021537 msg01396.tex]

189
1.4. AIRMAN-TAKEOFF CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Use of Flaps
Sun, 23 Jan 2000 11:36:46

In a message dated 1/23/00 2:01:03 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:
Does anyone have there POH’s available to verify this. I am just wondering
when it started showing up in the POH’s not if the action is valid or not
for use.
Good Morning BG,
In my copy of the straight 35 manual, the use of 10 degrees of flap for takeoff is mentioned.
There is also a chart showing takeoff distances with that flap.
Incidentally, the 35 only used 20 degrees as full flap even though it had originally been
designed to use 45.
In the G35 manual, twenty degrees of flap is suggested for use ”For a minimum run
takeoff”.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000123 113646 msg01427.tex]

190
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.4. AIRMAN-TAKEOFF

Use of Flaps
Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:09:10

In a message dated 3/7/00 9:45:09 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

John, I am with you, but being so new to this I can only share what I have
read, for close obstacles use flaps on take off. Bob

Good Evening Bob,

You really cannot make a blanket statement about how much flap will provide the best
obstacle clearance. You must describe an exact set of conditions and then go to the
charts and figure out which will do the best job.
At very high elevations and high weights, a flaps up takeoff may be the only option.
At low altitudes and very light weights it is possible that a full flap takeoff would clear
a twenty foot obstacle in a shorter distance than any other method available.
There are a few positive statements that can be made.
The rate of climb will always be better with the flaps up.
The airplane will fly slower with full flaps than in any other configuration.
It will also develop more drag with full flap than with any lesser flap.
If the power to rate ratio is favorable enough to allow a considerable rate of climb at
those very slow airspeeds, the angle of climb might be the steepest under the full flap
condition.
You have to check the charts!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000307 230910 msg04417.tex]

191
1.4. AIRMAN-TAKEOFF CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Use of Flaps/Short Field Takeoff

Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:57:06

In a message dated 3/7/00 7:27:51 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

Flaps are there any preferences for 10, 15 or 20 degs? Which creates more
drag during climbout and subsequently should be raised first, Flaps or Gear
I have hear different opinions.

Good Morning Bob,

There are those who will tell you that any use of flap for takeoff is illegal. Plenty of
information concerning that argument is in the archives. Which comes up first, the flaps
or the gear is also controversial.
If I were flying a J model off of your strip in the conditions you describe, my normal
technique would be to use ten degrees of flap. Gear retraction would be initiated after
a positive rate of climb had been established along with an increase in speed of at least
five knots above the lift off speed. In gusty or turbulent conditions, I might wait a little
longer before initiating gear retraction. I would retract the flaps when I felt that all
obstacles where going to be adequately cleared and with at least fifteen knots above the
lift off speed.
When the gear is retracted, the main gear doors will open and an increase in drag is
likely. The higher the angle of attack (not the pitch attitude), the higher the drag
increase. If there is an obstacle extremely close to the takeoff point which requires flight
at the absolute most optimum speeds to be cleared, there is an outside possibility that
it could be cleared more easily by leaving the gear down. That is a rare case. Most of
the time you will have a lot more altitude at the end of the runway if you retract the
landing gear as soon as it is safe to do so without settling back to the runway. I do not
subscribe to the theory of leaving the gear down until it is no longer possible to land on
the remaining runway, I would prefer to have all of the altitude possible in the event of
an engine failure. Many experts will disagree.
Any amount of flap may be used for takeoff including full flap. The optimum amount to
be used is a function of the runway surface condition, the length of the surface available,
the weight of the aircraft, the power available and the obstacles to be cleared. The rate
of climb will always be higher with the flaps up, provided the airplane is flown at the
best rate of climb speed for the existing weight. The best flap to use to clear an obstacle
takes a lot of calculation.
I just like the way it feels and the visibility I get with ten degrees of flap.
Does that help or confuse the issue?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob

192
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.4. AIRMAN-TAKEOFF

[ARTICLES/20000307 085706 msg04376.tex]

193
1.4. AIRMAN-TAKEOFF CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

When to Retract the Landing Gear

Sat, 29 Jan 2000 11:47:04

In a message dated 1/29/00 10:08:35 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

At 12:42 PM 01/28/2000 -0800, John Deakin wrote:

As soon as I comfortably can after pulling the gear up. Which I do as soon
as I’m positive I won’t contact the ground.
Don’t you follow the rule about leaving the gear down until you can no
longer land on the remaining runway?

Good Morning Eric,

I hope you don’t mind my jumping in on a question directed toward John. I am eager
to see what his answer will be, but in the meantime!
My first inclination is to say ”What rule?” But, I won’t do that! That is a procedure
that is recommended by a lot of people and if it is the way you like to do it, why not?
I don’t like it and I do have a reason. The gear is nothing but drag once you are
airborne. The airplane will climb at a higher rate with the gear up than it will with
the gear down. If the engine quits during takeoff anywhere except in the very first stage
of the procedure, you will have more altitude if you raise the gear than if you leave it
hanging out.
There is an increase in drag as the inboard doors open. If you are at a very high angle
of attack, the increase can be quite dramatic, but that increase in drag is much less of
a problem as the angle of attack decreases.
If I were departing from Leadville at max gross weight in a straight model 35 that is
still equipped with the E185-1 engine and the wooden prop, I would want to accelerate
at least ten MPH from whatever speed I left the ground before attempting to retract
the gear. Not only that, but I would stay right down in the ground cushion until the
gear was safely in the wells.
With my V35B at sea level and average weights, I suck the gear up as soon as I am
solidly airborne. It takes four seconds from down to up! Now, what do I consider solidly
airborne? Off the ground, an acceleration of at least a couple of knots and a rate of
climb established. The slower it is accelerating, the longer I wait to put away the rollers.
I may have mentioned this before: But, it depends!
If the runway is available for landing when the engine quits and I decide that putting it
out is better than landing gear up, there is plenty of time to put it back out. The only
thing you don’t want to do is to change the direction while it is operating. Wait till it
is all the way up and then throw it back out.

194
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.4. AIRMAN-TAKEOFF

While I always want to consider the possibility of the engine quitting, if I really thought
it was going to quit often, I wouldn’t fly it! My normal approach is a power approach.
If the engine quits I will end up short of the runway. On many runways, that will be a
bad accident. I fly at night, on instruments, over water and rugged mountains. I really
don’t think worrying about the gear being up or down is a biggie in the overall scheme
of things!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000129 114704 msg02013.tex]

195
1.5. AIRMAN-TRAINING CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

1.5 AIRMAN-TRAINING

196
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.5. AIRMAN-TRAINING

BPPP
Thu, 9 Apr 1998 13:43:57

Good Afternoon All,

Just a little more comment on the BPPP. While I have never attended one, I have
spoken to many participants and I have not had any negative reports.
It would seem that it would be an excellent way to gain a lot of knowledge in a very
short time period. For busy people with adequate funds it is undoubtedly a very good
deal.
I have hopes that some day my financial and time constraints will align themselves so
that I might participate in a BPPP. I am sure I would gain from the experience, but
don’t feel I should quit flying till then!
To say that one is a less competent pilot if he or she has not taken the course is a little
presumptuous. I dare say that I could locate a fairly large number of aviators without
the benefit of BPPP training who are every bit as competent as the average graduate
of the course.
Can’t we just say that it is a very good benefit available to the ABS member and
recommend that it be utilized by those who desire to do so without implying that those
who elect to train themselves in a different manner are less safe?
A weekend cram course is convenient, immersion training does work. So does constant
and steady study by an individual so inclined.
The important thing is that the individual pilot be interested in constant improvement
and sharpening of his/her skills.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980409 134357 msg01908.tex]

197
1.5. AIRMAN-TRAINING CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Dual Brakes
Fri, 9 Jul 1999 12:50:06

Good Morning All,

Both Steve Oxman and Phoenix Aviation Inc. have asked about information concerning
adding dual brakes to their aircraft.
I have no help to offer concerning the availability of the kit, but I would like to comment
on the desirability of adding that component to the airplane.
If you have a flight instructor who refuses to give training in the airplane without dual
brakes, get another flight instructor!
If the folks at Phoenix Aviation have an examiner that refuses to give flight checks in an
aircraft without right side brakes, I would consider looking for another examiner. If it
is your local FAA that is making that a requirement, it is a much bigger problem. The
local FSDO has a lot of power and if they make a stupid rule, it is almost impossible to
get it changed. I hope that is not the case in Phoenix!
There is a substantial history of training having been conducted in the Bonanza (and
many other aircraft) that were not equipped with the dual brake system. In the late
forties and up into the fifties we often trained students from scratch in the Bonanzas
with no brakes and no dual control column.
The position of the control arm in the center allows one to exercise control over the pitch
and the basic stability of the Bonanza combined with the interconnection between the
rudder and the aileron is so good, that the aileron input is not all that important.
The use of the brakes was taught to the student in an uncongested area as the first
element of learning to fly.
The requirement to have the dual column came along not because there was any evidence
that there was a problem instructing in the Bonanza, but because some rule maker in
DCA decided that any airplane that was used for training must have fully functioning
dual controls.
Some of the field inspectors who had been giving flight checks in Bonanzas without dual
columns felt that the Bonanza with rudder pedals available and the column in the center
met the requirement, but others did not agree.
The upshot was that first the FAA inspectors were ordered to not conduct flight tests
without a dual column and then later on, that same ”advice” was given to the designated
examiners.
There was never a need shown.
The same situation has occurred with the dual brake situation, but I don’t believe the
FAA has leaned on the inspectors and the examiners as hard about the brakes as they
have the dual column.

198
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.5. AIRMAN-TRAINING

The dual column isn’t too bad as you can take it out and revert to the single column
without messing up the airplane. Not so for the brakes. Once they are installed, they
are there whether you need them or not.
I think the ability to fold the pedals down out of the way to give that entire space to
your right seat passenger is a tremendous advantage of the Bonanza line. I would not
want to give up that capability on my machine.
I didn’t comment when Phoenix Aviation made the request as I figured they may have
a FED problem. When Steve inquired, I felt I should at least make my thoughts known.
I rather hope that Bill Hale will let us have the latest official position as he is much
closer to the FAA problem due to his association with the BPPP program.
How about it Bill?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990709 125006 msg05831.tex]

199
1.5. AIRMAN-TRAINING CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Dual Brakes
Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:45:33

In a message dated 4/26/00 11:04:12 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Is there a recent FAA interpretation of an existing reg that there can be no

dual training in Bonanzas and Moonies that are without dual toe brakes?
Has this affected anyone here?
Thanks.

Good morning John,

This has been bouncing around for at least the last thirty years. Any instructor has
the right to refuse to give instruction in any airplane that he feels is not adequately
equipped for the mission at hand.
Most instructors (and pilot examiners) are happy to give instruction and flight checks
in aircraft without dual brakes.
There is no FAA regulation prohibiting dual training in aircraft without dual brakes.
If you are involved in an incident which could in any way be construed as having been
caused or made worse by the lack of dual brakes, it is likely the FAA will include reckless
operation in the list of things they attempt to hang on the poor flight instructor. It is
amazing that anyone is willing to give flight instruction at all considering the current
litigious flavor of our country!
Still —- !?!?!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000426 124533 msg07098.tex]

200
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.5. AIRMAN-TRAINING

Dual Yoke
Wed, 21 Jan 1998 18:49:06

Good Evening Bob Briggs,

In a message dated 98-01-21 17:13:10 EST, you write:

What’s the rationale for a dual yoke rqmt? Has anyone ever had an accident
due to lack of a dual yoke?

I have never heard of anyone having problems giving dual in the single wheel, throwover
Bonanzas, Travelair and Barons.
I did it all the time before the FEDs started to say they didn’t like it.
I have taken many students from absolute initial training to all different licenses including
instrument, multiengine and even ATP. I never saw a problem and up into the sixties, I
never had a FED who refused to give a check ride in the airplanes equipped with only a
throw over column. Somewhere in the early sixties the FEDs did start requiring duals
for the checkride with them but it was still up to the individual examiner for DEs.
Each year they seem to get a little nastier about it but I never heard any justification
sited. Just somebodys idea of how it should be done.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19980121 184906 msg00430.tex]

201
1.5. AIRMAN-TRAINING CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

IFR Flight Instruction

Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:27:15

To Skip Weld 6049E,

The message quoted here from Kelli Gant V35B N3DX is one of the best comments I
have ever seen on this forum.

I believe that the same is true for the short schools to get to the check-
ride. When your life depends on understanding and experience, you want
a strong foundation to fall back on.

Even if ones flight training has been very well done, lots of actual and spread over a
long enough time to encounter many variables, the attainment of the instrument rating
is a little like the first solo, there is still a long way to go.
I feel that the ideal situation would be one in which everybody had a chance to spend
a couple of years riding right seat in a Twin Beech (Model 18 that is!) or DC-3 on
a scheduled operation of at least 75 or 80 hours per month. Even flying that sort of
operation in a jet, turbprop, or very high performance piston doesn’t expose one to the
same conditions that we Bonanza/Baron/TravelAir folks drive around in all the time.
Unfortunately , NOT a practical solution for most!!!!
The move that Kelli made to take his instructor along on a trip where there was a reason
to go and some ”schedule pressure” was present is an excellent idea.
When I was actively instructing, I encouraged my students to gain similar experience.
Especially AFTER the instrument rating was obtained. Whether it was riding with
a VERY experienced friend or with an instructor, just watching how an ”old timer”
handles things is great experience. You don’t need to fly, just watch!
I especially note Kelli’s reference to the partial panel time. The ”needle, ball and
airspeed” regime still works and it helps a lot with full panel smoothness and precision.
I have a personal hate of the turn coordinator and think that they should all be removed
from the panel, smashed with a large hammer and replaced with a ”real” turn and bank,
but that is another story! Even partial panel with the turn coordinator is better than
none at all.
Press on!!
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19971117 102715 msg02408.tex]

202
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.5. AIRMAN-TRAINING

Instrument Training/Flying the Compass

Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:43:19

In a message dated 97-11-28 09:08:25 EST, you write:

That is the mag compass. For those of us in the northern hemisphere, just
turn south on the mag compass.

Good Morning Ray

Yes, that is a good point. There are many little things like that which have been
shuttled into the background since the FEDs streamlined instrument training. Flying
the compass and all of it’s quirks and capabilities was a large part of the course when
we were teaching needle ball and airspeed!
The stability and emergency possibilities of the compass on southern headings in our
part of the world along with the lead and lag required to roll out on specific headings
was not only a portion of the written test, but proficiency in that use was required to
be demonstrated on the flight test.
I rather like teaching that and a lot of the other little tricks of the trade that we enjoyed
some years ago, but then again, I like to teach my students spins!
It has been demonstrated by the military and cililian flight training establishments that
adequate pilots can be produced using the present methods. I guess we can’t argue with
success. I believe I have stated previously that I feel the instrument rating is about like
the first solo, an important step, but there is still a lot to learn.
When I first started instructing instrument flying, we used the forty allocated hours to
teach one how to climb, descend and turn. Then how to bracket the beam and orient
oneself on the range station. Turning to a southerly heading in case of failure of the
T&B was about the only emergency there was to teach besides how to tell airspeed by
RPM or the change in engine sound.
Were those really the good old days? I remember them fondly, but prefer the equipment
we now enjoy.
Thanks for bringing it up.
Bob
[ARTICLES/19971128 094319 msg02556.tex]

203
1.5. AIRMAN-TRAINING CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Productive Flight Traning

Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:59:04

In a message dated 11/18/99 8:09:25 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Thank you for the comments. I am aware that it is not something that I
HAVE to learn, however, it would be nice to get a complete training while
I am getting instrument rated. I find the process of learning new things
very challenging and satisfying by itself. (One of the main reasons I went
on to learn flying in the first place!)

Good Morning Rajesh,

It is gratifying to see someone truly interested in learning and not just tacking on a
rating. That’s great!
I do think that one needs to be careful that the training time is spent in a productive
manner. I also believe that training should be to teach functions which will serve to
enhance the students knowledge and not just be oriented toward passing the check ride.
The competency test is merely one small, though significant, step along the path of
becoming a competent and knowledgeable user of the National Airspace System.
We instructors have a tendency to teach that with which we are familiar combined with
points that we think are important for the students future success.
I recall that I had an early Frasca simulator at my flight school in the late sixties which
still had the capability of training one to use the low frequency range. I gave my students
the option of learning that procedure even though there were few, if any LF approaches
active in the USA. I did not charge for the time, so a lot of my students took advantage
of the opportunity. I imagine they figured that the free simulator time made it worth
listening to an old guy reminisce about the good old days!
I still think that the time spent was productive even though the procedure would never
be used. It provided time spent at establishing situational awareness (long before the
term was in vogue) in a manner that they would never be tested on.
Once the old Frasca died, I no longer had the capability of teaching ”True Fade, Close
In, Parallel or Bisector” orientations. I continued to challenge my students by exercises
of holding at a fix made up of two radials while utilizing only one VOR and doing similar
things with one ADF and a fix defined by two bearings. It may not have much practical
application, but I feel it helps develop those desirable characteristics we generally refer
to as the ability to think on our feet!
Enough old guy rambling. Just enjoy and continue to be a student, regardless of the
hours in your log book or the ratings on your certificate!
Happy Skies,

204
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.5. AIRMAN-TRAINING

Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991118 125904 msg10744.tex]

205
1.5. AIRMAN-TRAINING CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Stall and Spin Traning

Tue, 6 Jan 1998 09:55:50

In a message dated 98-01-06 08:16:42 EST, you write:

Good Morning Ron, W. Webb and All,

Does practising stalls with this ”center the ball before the stall” technique
teach you how to recover from an accidental stall–when the ball is likely to
not be centered? IMHO, the answer is NO. Bo pilots need to understand
how to properly recover from the enthusiastic stalls that a Bo can regularly
produce in certain configurations–such as when flaps & gear are extended.
My observation has been that many Bo pilots have as their biggest problem
the reflex action of using the aileron to recover from such stalls which, of
course, does nothing but aggravate the situation–most of the time.

Reminds me of a fellow instructor back in the late forties who argued that we should
never teach stalls. We should just tell people not to get slow and don’t stall the airplane!
I rather liked doing stalls and spins and didn’t agree with his premise. Over the years
I have remained an advocate of stall and spin training but have at times bemoaned the
fact that stall training has become another precision maneuver to be flown in a very
exact manner to produce the desired result.
I agree with W. Webb that accidental stalls are not likely to occur with the aircraft
in stable level or stable turning coordinated flight, however I also agree with Ron that
training should be done to show that coordinated flight will produce a less violent
reaction by the aircraft. I think both of you will agree that inappropriate use of the
aileron will seriously aggravate the stall in a Bonanza.
While I still think that stall and spin training is important in initial pilot training, I am
not so sure that we should be doing stalls in the Bonanza. We don’t do spins do we?
Why should we do stalls?
Some years ago I did some flight testing for the installation of a pod mounted radar on
the Bonanza. After doing that on a couple of different airplanes, I decided that I would
NOT do training that required stalls in an airplane so equipped. The response was
too unpredictable. I also avoid stall training in airplanes equipped with tip tanks. Both
Beech and Piper lost airplanes and crew doing tests in tip tank equipped airplanes. Why
do them? I wouldn’t own an airplane without tip tanks. I just approach stall training
in the airplane very carefully.
I am beginning to think my friend of fifty years ago may have been on the right tack.
I wouldn’t eliminate stall training, but I think it should be oriented toward convincing
people to stay away from stalling the airplane, not convincing them that they can recover

206
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.5. AIRMAN-TRAINING

from a low altitude stall occuring on a dark and stormy night while on a low altitude
circling approach.
The Boeing 727 has atrocious stall characteristics. We were told that if we ever got into
a ”deep” stall that the only recovery possible was to roll inverted, let the speed build
up and then roll it right side up. The Boeing pilots told us it would take a minimum of
fifteen thousand feet to recover.
I will gaurantee you that I never stalled a 727!!!
Maybe it is time to separate the training airplanes from the ”go places” airplanes and
quit doing stalls in the Bonanza class airplanes!
What say all of you?
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19980106 095550 msg00124.tex]

207
1.5. AIRMAN-TRAINING CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Stall and Spin Traning

Tue, 6 Jan 1998 16:58:50

Good Afternoon Tom,

In a message dated 98-01-06 15:44:24 EST, you write:

PPS–has anyone come across a certified angle-of-attack indicator for Bo-

nanzas or Barons? My Navy-trained friends love ’em!

It is my recollection that Safe Flight Inc., the stall warner people, certificated one in the
early fifties right after they did the stall warning device. I don’t have any recollection of
why it didn’t catch on. Maybe it was priced too high. I have flown airplanes with angle
of attack indicators and they are nice. I have noted that the current crop of Navy pilots
are crazy about them. It must have something to do with the way they are trained to
use them. We all think that the way we were taught turns out the best pilots!
As to separating the training airplanes from the ”go places” airplanes, I envision a bare
bones V-Tail (35) or inverted T-Tail (33) set up as a trainer. Minimum weight in the
tailcone. No tip tanks, no radar, no heavy four bladed prop etc. Even though the
CG might be in the same place, an airplane with the weight distributed out towards the
extreme ends handles differently and recovers differently than one with the weights more
centrally located. It would be nice if it were certificated for spins but that wouldn’t be
absolutely necessary, I would just like to know that it will recover nicely if an accidental
spin develops.
I don’t get in any airplane and spin it with the abandon I did fifty years ago. When we
were spinning the trainers every day, if one started to develop some funny reactions we
wrote it up, the rigging was checked and soon it was back on the line as a nice predictable
airplane. You might get in a Cub, Champ, Luscombe or Cessna 120 tomorrow that hasn’t
been spun in forty years. It may well have been through a half dozen rebuilds since last
spun! The spin characteristics could be totally different than what that airplane had
fifty years ago.
I am sure you are aware that the Beech 19s and 23s had their spinning approval rescinded.
We had a couple of them in our flight school that had some very wild excursions that
were never explained. I can see why they decided to quit spinning them.
An airplane that is used regularly for flight training at the edge of the acceptable envelope
is much more likely to have predictable results and that is what I want to fly when
demonstrating unusual maneuvers and recoveries.
My airplane has three six pound servos, a two pound yaw damper sensor, strobe ampli-
fier, ELT, Strikefinder antenna and I don’t know what else back in the tail cone.
Up on the nose is a four blade prop that weighs thirty eight pounds more than the one
it replaced. The CG is fine but I doubt that a Bonanza has ever been spun with that
weight distrbution and I don’t intend to be the test pilot that finds out how it works!

208
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.5. AIRMAN-TRAINING

The same thinking applies to the tip tanks, I know the airplanes were spun as part of
the approval process but everything I have read tells me that recovery is more difficult
with the mass distributed further out on the spinning arms. Why stretch your luck?
I agree whole heartedly that most of us need practice and re-enforcement of our basic
flying skills at the outer edge of the envelope. I like doing stalls and spins, but then that
is one of the reasons I have my Stearman. Remember when Marion Cole was giving dual
in his Aerobatic Debbie? It would be nice if someone set up something like that again.
I am sure he knew just how that airplane would react every time and if things started
to change, he could get it fixed!
Maybe that would be a good project for you Tom?
Happy Skies.
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980106 165850 msg00142.tex]

209
1.5. AIRMAN-TRAINING CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

Teaching the Radio Range

Thu, 8 Jul 1999 21:50:55

In a message dated 7/8/99 6:57:43 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Bob S. should I take you up on some low freq. radio range work?

Hi David,
As recently as thirty years ago, when I was teaching my sons to be instrument pilots,
I had an early Frasca Trainer which still had the low frequency range capability. I did
use that capability to help the boys get their situational awareness thinking process
established. We all felt it did that job quite nicely! If you can find a Frasca or a Link
that is still using the crab on the table and has the tone generator still working, I still
remember how to teach it! While my old Link Trainer Instructor certificate was long
ago merged into the Advanced Ground Instructor certificate, It would be fun to teach
it to a young whippersnapper like you.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990708 215055 msg05813.tex]

210
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.6. AIRMAN-WORKATC

1.6 AIRMAN-WORKATC

211
1.6. AIRMAN-WORKATC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

”Direct” Routing
Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:25:56

In a message dated 12/20/99 8:51:40 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Acquire a handheld GPS and you can legally go direct just like the big
boys and you will always know precisely where you are.
Bob.... Would you mind expanding on this some. Didn’t know my handheld
GPS was legal for anything. Regards, Larry

Good Evening Larry,

When you go direct in the contiguous 48 NAS, you are generally operating on the
controllers authority, not yours.
That is true whether you are using an INS, IRS, Omega (now out of service) Loran or
GPS.
The major thing is to not tell lies about what you are doing. Don’t file a slash letter that
is not consistent with IFR approved equipment that is actually aboard your aircraft.
They really don’t care how you stay on course, just that you do!
I like to file a course that I could follow on my own with the legal IFR equipment on
board. I know many who even file for the direct course from departure to destination
with nothing more than one VOR and a handheld GPS. I think that is stretching things
a bit, BUT, remember that it IS legal for you to plan and fly a DR course all of the way
across the US if you can find a controller that will let you do it!
You can’t shoot an approach for which you do not have equipment. You can’t use a
handheld as a substitute for a required DME fix or a required ADF function. You can,
however, answer a query as to your position by stating that you think you are about
2.2 mile from PODNK intersection. If you were to be asked how you knew that, tell the
truth, but I have never been asked!
I suggest that you file a regular airway, or at least a course such as direct PIA, direct STL,
direct MEM. That would be something that could be flown reasonably with nothing more
than a VOR. Then once you are airborne, ask for direct to your destination or wherever
else you would like to go. If the controller asks what type of navigation equipment you
will be using, tell him/her that you have a VFR handheld GPS or whatever it is that
you are planning to use.

f rom199912202 23755m sg12156.tex

The controller will often ask you what heading it will take to get you to the position to
which you have asked to go direct.

212
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.6. AIRMAN-WORKATC

Be sure to use a phrase similar to this: ”My initial heading Direct XXX will be XXX
degrees.” The heading that it takes will vary as you head across the country. If you tell
the controller you are going to hold a heading, you are expected to hold that heading
until you are given a clearance to do something else, whether it holds you on the desired
course or not. Another clearance which could be issued would be for the controller to
give you something like this: ”Maintain a heading of XXX till able to proceed direct”.
As soon as you get your handheld set up for the spot you are going to, you can go ahead
and follow the course.
I haven’t had a controller ask in the last ten years or more!!
It may be helpful to add in your remarks section that you have VFR GPS available.
Unfortunately, that information is not consistently passed on to the controllers at all
centers, so the controller may or may not have the remarks you file.
No cheating, no winking, no subterfuge required. Just tell the truth and press on!!
If the controller can handle the direct flight, you will get it. If it doesn’t fit, you won’t!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991220 222556 msg12155.tex]

213
1.6. AIRMAN-WORKATC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

”Direct” Routing and Aircraft Heading

Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:56:45

Good Morning BEECHDRIVR

In a message dated 98-04-30 09:40:36 EDT, you write:

The best way to use VFR only GPS in IFR is to Request ”heading of xxx
until recieving yyyVOR” Seems to work every time and is legal since you
are presumably navigating by holding a heading.

I think this would probably work in actual practice but there is one technical problem
that might occur. The controller expects you to hold the heading assigned and not
change that heading without clearance to do so.
Remember, you have requested a heading, not a track. If you request direct, you are
requesting a track.
Separation from other aircraft is sometimes based on that heading. If you are still six
or seven hundred miles away from the VOR and you start tracking to it, it is likely
that your heading will change substantially due to winds, great circle course, changing
variation and the like. It would not be expected that you could receive the VOR until
you are within a couple of hundred miles of the site. Should you elect to change the
heading before that time, you should check with the controller for permission to do so.
In the days before GPS, we many times requested a certain heading to FARMM in-
tersection, a feeder fix for ORD, from as far away as the west coast. If we intended
to change that requested heading along the way, we always asked permission to do so.
On occasion we would be told to hold the subject heading for another fifty miles or so
due to traffic assigned a parallel heading to the one we had requested. You will also
note that quite often when one is on a ”heading till able” clearance, the controller will
ask if you can receive the station yet. If unable, he/she may well assign an adjusted
heading. In addition we always told the controller when we were receiving the station
and proceeding direct. I don’t know if that was actually required, but it seemed to be
appreciated by the controllers.
I still think it is easiest and safest to tell the controller the absolute truth and see what
you can negotiate. It works for me!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980430 105645 msg02207.tex]

214
CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN 1.6. AIRMAN-WORKATC

Alternate Means of Identifying a Fix

Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:10:09

Good Morning Bob Briggs,

In a message dated 98-04-30 11:59:42 EDT, you write:

You can always ask the controller to approve an alternate means of identi-
fying a fix, such as radar or VOR DME combination.

This has been another one of those ongoing discussions and in many actual cases, the
controller will issue clearances which he/she has no authority to do. Unintentional and
probably very safe but still not within the controllers authority. Without digging in to
the manual for the appropriate references it is something like this. There are certain fixes
where the controllers RADAR position can always be substituted provided his RADAR
has been qualified for the use. I believe substitution of a RADAR fix for an outer marker
or outer locator is one of those blanket uses.
When there is a RADAR fix noted on the chart, it is allowed any time the RADAR is
operating. In addition, there are RADAR and VOR/DME fixes that have been checked
for accuracy and are available to the controller for his use which are not published for
our use.
If there has not been a flight checked approved substitution for a fix the controller
does not have the authority to make the substitution on his own. This information
was provided to me when we were trying to get the FAA to provide RADAR fixes to
substitute for the DME fixes which we have on our approach to my home airport.
I believe this to be a fairly accurate representation but as with all things in a regulatory
environment, there is always room for interpretation.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980430 131009 msg02216.tex]

215
1.6. AIRMAN-WORKATC CHAPTER 1. AIRMAN

216
Chapter 2

AVIONICS

2.1 AVIONICS-ANTENNA

217
2.1. AVIONICS-ANTENNA CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

”Blade” Style Antennas

Mon, 23 Feb 1998 19:10:06

Good Evening Mickey,

In a message dated 98-02-23 18:08:01 EST, you write:
I’ve seen several airplanes with blades on each side of the empennage below
the control surfaces. Is that a nav antenna? Any good?
The installation of blades for the nav antennas was part of Mike Smiths mods.
I have Dorne Margolins (sp?) mounted in the position Mike recommends. The position
and angle are rather controversial.
Mine are mounted between the aft bulkhead and the one immediately preceeding it.
They are oriented to be parallel to the bottom of the fuselage, not with the line of flight.
That is where Mike said they produced the lowest drag. I mounted mine low enough that
I could put spars between them for adequate stiffness and still clear the tail mechanism.
Placement is critical. Many others argue for the blades to be installed faired to level
flight. I installed them originally because I was told that my RNAV unit would work
better with blades than with the more common ”V” antenna.
It did seem to help and they work very well however I also ran new cables throughout and
properly grounded all antennas which had not been done at the factory. I am currently
feeding both VHF nav units and both glides slopes from the single set of blades. Works
great but it does reduce redundancy.
The position vacated by the old factory rams horn was perfect for the GPS antenna.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980223 191006 msg01121.tex]

218
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.1. AVIONICS-ANTENNA

”Blade” Style Antennas Installation

Wed, 8 Jul 1998 09:48:19

Good Morning Tim Freeze,

In a message dated 98-07-08 05:28:22 EDT, you write:

I am interested in removing the flying V antenna from my P35 and want

to put one of the blade type Nav antennas on the fuselage sides. I know
Smith Speed Mods used to do this. Does anyone know the location for the
antenna or could measure the location on their plane.

When I decided to eliminate the flying V on my airplane, I made the effort to measure
the location of the blade antennas on several Mike Smith installations.
While the plane of the antennas was always parallel to the bottom surface of the belly
at the position of the antenna, the location varied as to the fore and aft and vertical
dimensions. The most common seemed to be with the base of the antenna mounted half
way between the rear bulkhead (Station 272) and the next to the rear bulkhead (Station
256.9) with the latest installations being most consistent.
The vertical dimension varied between two and three quarters of an inch to as high as
four inches from the bottom of the fuselage. The later ones were closer to three inches
from the edge of the bottom of the side skin panel than four.
I settled on three and one quarter inches up from the bottom edge of the skin centered
between the bulkheads though I raised the leading edge up one sixteenth of an inch
because I thought it looked better. When I had it completely parallel to the bottom,
the visual effect was that it looked slightly nose down in relation to the bottom skin.
The Mike Smith installations that I looked at did not tie into any of the stringers or
bulkheads of the fuselage though others did. I saw some as much as a foot further
forward than the Smith mods. Mike’s all had a single flat doubler rolled to fit the side
skin and glued in place. They were not tied in to the associated stringers. I was not
happy with the stiffness of those installations and I didn’t like the ones into the stringers
either so I made small spars to fit between the antennas and used the same type doubler
as Mike had, but with an anti-peel rivet located at each corner of the doubler. The
spars will only work if the antennas are placed low enough to clear the ruddervator
mixer assembly. Mine clear by a half inch or more.
I did run into a gentleman from Oregon who had a gorgeous airplane that he had worked
on very hard to make it as fast as possible. It had the Mike Smith mods put on before
he obtained the airplane and one of the changes he made was to put the tail mounted
blade antennas up to line of flight instead of the way Mike had mounted them. He felt
that it resulted in an increase of one MPH.
I asked Mike about it and he said his were positioned based on flight and tuft testing
and he felt the parallel to the bottom orientation was best. I sure don’t know who is

219
2.1. AVIONICS-ANTENNA CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

correct, but the spars won’t work if the antenna is placed parallel to line of flight and I
do like my spars!
One other potential problem.
Some FSDO’s will not approve the installation without at least a DER engineering
analysis.
I would make sure that your radio shop or other installing authority has some assurance
they will be approved before you start cutting metal.
Mine have worked great for eight years. I originally installed them as I was told they
would make my RNAV unit work better. the system definitely worked better after
the blades were installed but I did add all new antenna cables for the blades and my
DME antenna and I made an effort to properly ground all of the antennas as the radio
manufacturers recommend. The Beech factory had not prepared the surface of the skin
prior to mounting the antennas any where near as well as recommended by the various
radio and antenna manufacturers.
The spot where the V antenna was removed made the perfect location for my GPS
antenna.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980708 094819 msg03532.tex]

220
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.1. AVIONICS-ANTENNA

”Blade” Style Antennas Installation

Sat, 29 Jan 2000 07:16:58

In a message dated 1/29/00 1:29:54 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Good grief. It is just the opposite of mine! Castleberry’s in Austin did

them. We were able to install a doubler as well. Mine angle up when the
Bo in on the ground presumably so they will be level in flight with the nose
slightly down.

Good Morning John,

The proper position is controversial!
If the antennas were mounted any higher or not parallel to the bottom skin, my spars
would interfere with the mixer mechanism.
One of the reasons I went with the Mike Smith position was that I don’t like the idea of
adding doublers in the tail area. The FAA recommends and most people do try to tie
in the doubler with a stringer and/or bulkhead. That is considered good practice.
I think that it changes the distribution of stresses in the tail and that is an area in which
I don’t want to change anything if I can keep from doing it.
Mike Smith used a very small doubler which does not extend to, or fasten to, any other
structure. However, that left his antennas rather flimsy and wiggly. I made spars which
are mounted transversely to the fuselage and fasten the two antennas together. I was
careful to make them just fit so that there is absolutely no pressure in any direction
on the skin or the structure other than the air loads imposed by the antennas. With
the spars making the two antennas act as one structure, there is no possibility of any
twisting motion at all. The loads are strictly in shear to the skin. I didn’t use any
doubler on the first one. My local FED said he liked what I had done, but thought
there should be something there just to conform to standard practice. I now use the
small Mike Smith style of glued in doubler, but I add a three-thirty-seconds rivet in each
corner to provide anti-peel protection. On at least one of the Mike Smith installations
I have seen, the doubler has separated from the skin.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000129 071658 msg01997.tex]

221
2.1. AVIONICS-ANTENNA CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

”Blade” Style Antennas Verses Flying ”V”

Wed, 8 Jul 1998 10:23:24

Good Morning Eric Poole,

In a message dated 98-07-08 09:46:29 EDT, you write:

Does anyone know what if any difference the blade nav antenna should
make over the Flying V in terms of cruise speed?

I don’t know about the speed, but it should be a measurable amount. Mike Smith claims
that the biggest improvements can be made by cleaning off the top of the fuselage. He
would eliminate everything up there if possible.
The location of the Beech combo NAV/COMM flying V is especially bad as it is right
at the leading edge of the fuselage profile, probably the worst place it could be as a drag
producer.
I have also been told that it is in a position that causes considerable audible noise in
the cabin as well as picking up electronic interference from the plastic windshield when
flying in precipitation.
While the blade antennas don’t have a particularly high gain, (no better than the V)
they have a much better distribution pattern which is why they work better with the
RNAV units.
Cockpit covers are easier to fit too!
And it is a perfect spot for the GPS which is not affected by the windshield precipitation
static! Too bad no one is as yet providing a flush mounted GPS antenna. I think it
could be done now that five degree masking is fairly universal.
All in all, there appear to be many reasons to get rid of the monster on top of the
fuselage.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980708 102324 msg03535.tex]

222
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.1. AVIONICS-ANTENNA

”Blade” Style Antennas Verses Flying ”V”

Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:25:23

In a message dated 6/28/00 8:17:19 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Howard Petersen typed:

The ”Blade” antennas do have an anomaly though..they are 4 times more
sensitive to VOR signals off the side...perpendicular to the line of flight.
Be interested in where you get these figures, Howard. You state them like
they’re fact, but where do they come from?
Ron

Good Morning Ron and Howard,

I am stepping into an area well outside my expertise here, but I have been told that the
advantage to the blades is that they have a very consistent pattern all of the way around.
As I understand the situation, the gain on the ”V’ antenna is stronger (better?) but
not as even all the way around. The V was meant to be omni directional, but nothing
is perfect.
The more even distribution of the blades is supposed to give a signal that is easier for
the RNAV computations.
I also like the blades resistance to ice accretion. Besides, putting them on the tail freed
up an excellent location for my GPS antenna!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000628 092523 msg10292.tex]

223
2.1. AVIONICS-ANTENNA CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Antenna Installation
Mon, 20 Dec 1999 21:46:14

Good Evening Ed,

In a message dated 12/20/99 8:22:15 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

Monday Evening 12/20/99

Old Bob,
I looked at the P-35 today and tried to visualize exactly what you explained
in such great detail regarding the antenna installation. The questions I still
have are:
1. The two bulkheads that the antennas are mounted between are the same
ones that the stabilizer mounts to - right?

That’s true!

2. The ”spar” that you fabricate actually goes from one side of the plane
to the other - right?

Again correct.

3. I assume that the ”spar” connects to the mounting screws - one at the
front and one at the rear - right?

Almost! I use one spar at the front and one at the back. They do fasten to the mounting
screws. All four screws are used.

4. The ”doubler” that you used is one similar to ones normally furnished
with antenna kits - mounts on the inside - right?

Right again!

5. How much bigger is the doubler than the antenna - I would normally
make one about an inch or two longer and wider - OK?

Yes, I don’t let it touch the existing bulkheads or stringers, but make it fairly large.

6. What would you make the ”spar” from - maybe .032 - 2024T3?

I use .040.

7. I didn’t really look at possible interference with the cables - any there?

The spars are close to the mixers. As I recall, there is about one half inch, or maybe
only a quarter inch clearance.

224
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.1. AVIONICS-ANTENNA

I appreciate the patience and the help!!

Always a pleasure!! I make the spars in three pieces. A fitting to attach to each set of
screws and then a U channel to tie the two opposing fittings together.
I mount the mixer on one of the spars and put lightening holes in them also. I put
grommets in the lightening holes and coil the balance cables through those holes.
I have a friend who is a much better metalsmith than I. He uses my spar idea, but makes
the spars out of one piece of aluminum.
I fasten each end fitting to the attach holes in the skin with the doubler in place but
without the blades. I then mark, drill and Cleco the pieces together and remove them
for riveting.
My effort is to fit the spars so that there is no bending in or out of any of the existing
components of the aircraft. Hopefully there ends up no change in any of the stress
distribution paths.
There have been about a dozen done that way that I know of and so far, no complaints!

Best Regards, Ed Smith N5158C @ PVG

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991220 214614 msg12152.tex]

225
2.1. AVIONICS-ANTENNA CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Optimal Antenna Location

Thu, 13 May 1999 23:12:05

In a message dated 5/13/99 8:21:27 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Of course the com on the belly will be useless for ground transmission but
I don’t think this is an issue really. Not with two coms.

Good Evening John,

I certainly have no expertise on electronics, but I do have some experience with various
antenna locations.
On my current airplane, I located the primary comm antenna on the belly as I figured
that it would work best when airborne. The backup unit is on the top just aft of the
cabin area.
I had figured I could use the number two for all ground communications, if required. As
it worked out, the number one (belly antenna) works fine at least ninety percent of the
time when I am on the ground. There are certain ramps where it doesn’t seem to work
too well, and I believe those few places have a lot of reinforcing wire in the concrete. It
has not been a problem.
I wanted one antenna on the top of the airplane so that it would be available in the
event of a belly landing, either at an airport or out in the boonies.
I try to keep the top of the airplane as antenna free as possible. Mike Smith cleaned
everything off the top in his efforts to go fast. Said that the whole cabin top was an
area that needed to be kept clean.
I do have the GPS antenna in the spot where the old rams horn unit was placed by the
factory. I don’t think there is a better location on the airplane for the GPS.
I think you would be happy with the performance of an antenna mounted on the belly.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990513 231205 msg04636.tex]

226
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.1. AVIONICS-ANTENNA

Optimal Antenna Location

Fri, 14 May 1999 09:07:27

Good Morning John,

Yesterday I wrote:

I located the primary comm antenna on the belly as I figured that it would
work best when airborne.

In a message dated 5/14/99 12:16:00 AM Central Daylight Time, you wrote:

How did that work out? Is it the best primary location when airborne? Do
you recommend the bent wire style or the bent solid type?

The bottom location seems to work fine, though I can’t really tell any difference in
performance between it and the one mounted on the top. I suppose there is some loss
of signal strength due to the bottom one being a bent antenna where the top one is
straight.
I would like to eliminate all of the stuff on the top as suggested by Mike Smith. The
airplanes really look nice with absolutely nothing up there and the ”go fast” boys claim
it helps!
I have considered trying to build a retracting VHF antenna to be used for those situations
where the top mounted antenna would be required and have it buried the rest of the
time.
Mike has an STC (now held by BDS, I would imagine), that eliminates the top mounted
cabin airscoop and replaces it with a NASA scoop in the maintenance access door located
on the left side of the fuselage just ahead of the empennage.
If someone would come up with a flush GPS antenna and an approved retractable
antenna for the ELT, (some are now mounted so that the antenna is in one of the back
windows, but I don’t care too much for that), we could have a completely clear cabin
top!
I have had experience in the past with wire whip antennas vibrating under some icing
conditions. Not always, just in some few isolated instances. The ones I am using now
are Dorne Margolin solid blades. The small ones, with a solid base and plastic covered
rod element, not the big 747 type! They have given no problems at all, though I am
sure others are just as good.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990514 090727 msg04647.tex]

227
2.1. AVIONICS-ANTENNA CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Optimal Antenna Location

Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:03:57

In a message dated 3/12/00 1:31:39 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

If up front I was informed by Jim Hughes (ABS Mag avionics column) that
this location was a poor choice by Beech because it radiates down ontop the
radio stack. The top of the stack is the one position that is generally not
shielded and so creates feedback. By inference I suspect this is also a less
desirable location for a traditional com antenna and so I relocated com1
to the belly, leaving com2 on top just forward of the tail. For cosmetics I
relocated the Loran C antenna mid ship on top.

Good Evening John,

I agree that the location on top of the cabin is a terrible place for a VHF antenna of
any kind, but it’s not so hot for a LF one like the Loran either!
The place where Beech put the combo antenna is the best place on the airplane for a
GPS antenna. Save it for that!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000313 010357 msg04672.tex]

228
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.1. AVIONICS-ANTENNA

Optimal Antenna Location

Sun, 10 Dec 2000 09:23:25

In a message dated 12/10/00 4:23:27 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I’d still put one antenna on the top of the aircraft for use on the ground.
Put it back further than the flying V was, and put the GPS antenna where
that one was. If you only have com antennas on the bottom you’re bound
to run into situations where you cannot communicate well with ground
control a some airports.

Good morning Dirk and Ron,

May I second Ron’s suggestion?
When I installed blade antennas in lieu of the factory top cabin mounted monster mon-
strosity V antenna, I used Dorne Margolin blades on the tail to feed both nav units and
two glide slope receivers.
To replace the comm component of the old V, I placed a Dorne Margolin bent antenna
on the belly.
That has worked reasonably well, but there are occasions when ground communications
with the belly antenna are less than ideal and, for those occasions, I am glad I retained
the factory installed secondary comm antenna on the top of the fuselage. More about
that later.
The belly antenna has problems on the ground not just because of line of sight difficulties,
but if you happen to be located on a concrete ramp which contains a lot of re-enforcing
steel bars, they may absorb too much of the transmitted signal to provide a viable
output.
My airplane came from Beech with a second comm antenna mounted about four and
a half feet aft of the cabintop V unit. When I made the major antenna change, I
removed that antenna with the intent of checking for proper ground and replacing all
of the existing antenna cabling. I was surprised to find that Beech had done nothing
specific to assure that the antenna was properly grounded. On some of the other factory
mounted antennas, there had been some preparation by the use of one of those little
circular brush units to assure adequate grounding. The secondary antenna had no such
preparation applied. I removed the paint in the area and applied the clear Alodine
solution as recommended by both Beech and most antenna manufacturers.
I am at a loss as to why Beech didn’t follow their own recommendations on the second
comm antenna. I assume that, since the second antenna was an option, the installation
was done at some time other than when the primary antennas were installed and/or by
less qualified and conscientious persons.
I don’t have to use that standby comm with the top antenna often, but on some occa-

229
2.1. AVIONICS-ANTENNA CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

sions, I would be totally unable to communicate on the ground if I had only the belly
antenna.
Incidentally, I placed the GPS antenna where the big old V had been and it works
beautifully. It would probably be better if that area was left completely void of any
protuberance if speed is of the essence. Most speed gurus feel that the entire cabin
top should be kept clear of any additional devices of any sort. I obtained the highest
quality small GPS antenna that was available, but it would be better if a flush one was
available!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001210 092325 msg17463.tex]

230
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.2. AVIONICS-AP

2.2 AVIONICS-AP

231
2.2. AVIONICS-AP CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

3 Axis Autopilots
Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:06:17

In a message dated 2/22/00 11:07:37 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I’m not clear on what the difference is between a 2-axis autopilot with yaw
dampers and a 3-axis autopilot. Isn’t the yaw damper just another way of
controlling the third axis?

Good Evening Larry,

I don’t consider myself an expert on autopilots, but I will try to present my perception
of the difference.
The yaw damper is a single axis device which often just keeps the ball in the middle.
In some cases it will keep the aircraft in a displaced mode selected by the pilot. More
later.
The three axis autopilot handles the controls as would a human pilot. It inputs rudder
as required to correct for adverse yaw induced by the differential action of the aileron
and stuff like that.
The B-720s that I flew were equipped with a full three axis autopilot which did all of the
above. In addition, it had a rather rudimentary yaw damper. It’s only job was to stop
any dutch roll which developed. The action of that yaw damper was very much like any
of the GA yaw dampers that I have flown. If it was on while you hand flew the airplane,
it would oppose any effort to slip or skid the airplane. Like the Bonanza, the 720/707
series of Boeings had a tremendous amount of directional stability but were somewhat
lacking in vertical surface to provide yaw damping. The very first version of the airplane
had a much shorter vertical fin than the one normally seen. Within a few months of
the introduction of the type, an extension was added to the top of the vertical fin and
all subsequent versions were produced with that taller fin. It was still something of a
wiggler, especially if the aviator tended to use the aileron excessively. The dedicated yaw
damper would do a good job of stopping the dutch roll, but it made the thing fly like a
Mack truck instead of a nice responsive machine. Just like a Bonanza, judicious use of
the rudder made for a much nicer flying aircraft, but the yaw damper did an acceptable
job of providing a reasonable ride. Unfortunately, misuse of the rudder would put it on
it’s back, but that is another story!
The yaw dampers on the 727 and the 737, along with most of the yaw dampers on later
Boeings, would stop the yaw if one developed, but the neutral point about which that
yaw was stopped was displaced in accordance with the amount of yaw that the pilot
wanted to hold. In other words, if you wanted to make a wing down crosswind landing,
you could hold the required rudder to give a stable slip and the yaw damper would stop
any dutch roll or yaw that would develop, but leave the slip input alone.
With the later style of yaw damper, it could be left on full time and not interfere with

232
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.2. AVIONICS-AP

the pilots control of the aircraft in the manner that he/she desired.
Reading what I have written, I don’t think I have explained it very well! I guess the
key is that the yaw damper is a single purpose device, where the rudder channel of the
full three axis autopilot has functions coordinated with the needs of control as required
by the total autopilot. If the autopilot is designed to make a wing down crosswind
autoland, it would need a third axis to get the wing down. If there is no reason to fly
in a cross controlled situation, there is less reason for the third axis.
In addition, if the airplane has little tendency toward dutch roll, the normal three axis
autopilot can handle things reasonably well. If it has a high tendency toward dutch
roll, it is advantageous to have the stabilizing effect of an active full time yaw damper
such as those found on the newer Boeing aircraft. That very sophisticated style of yaw
damper lessens the need for the third axis on the autopilot.
That may be all wrong, but that is the way I see it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000223 010617 msg03391.tex]

233
2.2. AVIONICS-AP CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Autopilot Coupled to GPS

Wed, 26 Apr 2000 09:17:08

In a message dated 4/26/00 7:36:36 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I currently have a Trimble A2000 GPS and King HSI. The HSI is coupled
to the auto pilot but the GPS is not. This works good for flying vectors on
approach but not a good system for long cross country flights.
I have decided to have a 430 installed and I know that you can fly the VOR
and GPS on auto pilot with the 430 but does anyone know if the bug could
still be used on auto pilot? I would not want to lose that feature. If anyone
has this particular set up I would appreciate hearing from you.
Thanks bob v

Good Morning Bob,

If your Trimble 2000A was not hooked up to allow autopilot tracking, that was a major
error by the installer or an effort to lower the cost of installation by a minuscule amount!
Most installations include a switch to allow the A/P to track whatever is on the primary
CDI. Since in your airplane, the primary CDI is probably your HSI, that is how it should
have been set up.
All it really takes is a properly placed double pole, double throw toggle switch. A couple
of ten dollar lights can be added to show which source has been selected. For several
years, some of the local FSDOs were forcing the installation of a relay which would
switch the primary CDI (in your case, the HSI) back to the Primary VHF Navigation
Receiver any time an ILS frequency was selected on that receiver. That relay was often
driven by a fairly expensive combination switch/light. Using the relay, switch and light
arrangement instead of a double pole, double throw toggle switch could add anywhere
from five hundred to a couple thousand bucks to the cost of installation depending on
the quality of the components and how much the install shop wants to make on them.
I can’t speak for all autopilot installations and you don’t mention which one you have,
but I have never seen an installation where the autopilot bug could not be used as you
desire when properly selected on some sort of autopilot control unit. Every autopilot I
have ever seen has had such a controller.
A bit of further information. S-Tec has a magic box which will allow a more sophisticated
feed from the Garmin 430 to be used for guidance in lieu of the common practice of
following the CDI. It will allow more precise tracking and computes intercepts which
help compensate for wind and speed. Pretty slick and relatively low cost. Should be
less than a thousand bucks installed. I would spend money on that, but I wouldn’t go
for the relay deal. It’s a waste of money.
Happy Skies,

234
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.2. AVIONICS-AP

Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000426 091708 msg07079.tex]

235
2.2. AVIONICS-AP CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Autopilot and GPS Resolver

Fri, 28 Apr 2000 09:27:28

In a message dated 4/28/00 7:16:37 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

When I am connecting the 430 to the AP via the GPSS, is not the resolver
issue mute?

Can I not have the AP follow the GPS info directly?

Good Morning Steve,

These are two separate issues.
One is how does the set know which course to fly.
The other is what method does the autopilot use to follow the desired course.
The information as to which course is to be followed must come from somewhere. It
can be supplied automatically or selected by the pilot. There has to be a method for
the pilot to input the data whether it is via the resolver interface such as Garmin and
King/Honeywell use, or selection via the panel unit as the other manufacturers provide.
I have not used a 430 and don’t know just how much automation the FAA let them put
into the operation. I would imagine that on an approach, all of the courses are selected
automatically. On the early Garmin and King units, the set would tell the operator
what course was to be used and the operator would then set that course via the resolver
interface. Trimble, Northstar and II Morrow just let the set do it all by itself, but allow
the operator make a change if so desired.
Most current autopilots either get their steering information from the CDI or use the
same signals which would drive a CDI. That is generally a plus or minus five volt (or
thereabout) signal with plus being one way, minus the other and zero when the thing
was going the way the box desires.
What the GPSS does is add more information concerning speed, rates of closure and
a bunch of other parameters which allow a very nice smooth intercept and tracking
performance.
If you use the raw data from the left and right steering needle outputs, the airplane
will wiggle back and forth trying to null out those little voltages. That’s why the wing
levelers have the sensitivity adjustment on them. It is one method to try to make for
a little stability. The more sophisticated autopilots add in a heading reference. The
voltages derived by a displacement in heading are combined with the voltages from
the track displacement. The techie tries to adjust all of the pots so that tracking is
reasonably smooth and that is what we use.
The GPSS adds in all of those magic things that the GPS is able to tell it and provides

236
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.2. AVIONICS-AP

a much more stable and direct signal to the autopilot. I am not familiar with the
algorithm S-Tec is using, but I would imagine they get enough data from just the GPS
stream that heading is not one of the required functions to be considered for stabilization
of the autopilot signal. That is just another one of my totally uninformed non-engineer
perceptions though.
With the nice stable information that can be developed by the S-Tec GPSS unit, there
is no necessity for the heading input. The autopilot can steer directly from the GPS
signals.

Also, how would the new electronic (Sandel) HSI’s work in this set-up?

All the Sandel does is provide a fancy display of data derived from other sources. I
don’t know the exact mechanics of how they provide the resolver function, but it is
functionally the same as the King KCS 55A system. If the GPS set needs a resolver
function, the Sandel can provide it.
One more thing, even though the autopilot can track the GPS signal without setting
the course in the window, the presentation of the HSI will not be correct if the desired
course is not entered therein.
Remember what I said earlier about tracking with a wingleveler that does not use the
heading information? Same deal. In some ways, the HSI is a detriment when using
GPS. I still like mine, but I am not sure I would install one if I were starting over.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000428 092728 msg07213.tex]

237
2.2. AVIONICS-AP CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Backup Wing Leveler

Wed, 26 Jan 2000 15:39:39

In a message dated 1/26/00 1:30:39 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

It depends.

How True!!
I rather like the idea of a back up wing leveler ready to help out if confusion reigns. The
Mooney had it, I believe they called it Positive Control, Piper and Beech both offered it
for a while. One or the other called it a Constant Copilot. For some reason, the public
didn’t like it and it ended up kinda disappearing from the scene. I have a Century IA
that I would imagine would suffice for that purpose, but I rather doubt that I would be
sharp enough to get it on in time to prevent a disaster. By the time I realized I was out
of control, it would probably be too late!
It seems to me that the best thing is to have an instrument in which you have absolute
and complete confidence. If a turn needle is moving, it is working. If it doesn’t move at
all, it has failed. Simple and easy for me to understand.
One of the reasons I prefer a T&B to a horizon for a back up is how difficult it is to tell
which one of two horizons is telling the truth.
As I mentioned a few days ago, I had two T&Bs in my early Bonanzas. One vacuum
and one electric. Never had an artificial horizon in a Bonanza until the FAA (or was it
still the CAA?) required it around 1956.
The more different back ups and systems you have, the easier it is to get confused. The
simpler the better.
I thought the Brittain autopilot was a great solution when it first came on the scene.
The ability to use it after an electrical failure was/is a great feature. Unfortunately, the
greater load that it puts on the air system causes the air pumps to fail sooner!
I certainly understand the reasoning to use what you have to it’s greatest advantage!
If I were buying new, I would seriously consider all electric.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000126 153939 msg01773.tex]

238
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.2. AVIONICS-AP

Backup Wing Leveler

Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:08:58

In a message dated 6/30/00 12:27:30 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

If you loose the A/P and or HSI, A/I, etc., will the yaw damper, which is
independent of the other stuff, keep the wings level?

Good Evening John,

I’m afraid that won’t work. All the yaw damper will do is make sure that your graveyard
spiral is well coordinated!
I don’t know precisely what mechanism is used, but I believe it is a dampened pendulum
that senses a wiggle in the same way the ”Ball” inclinometer senses a wiggle.
The T&B and the TC are forcing a stable gyroscope to be displaced against a spring
and that is what shows the turn.
The ”Constant Copilot” or Mooney ”PC”, ”Positive Control” I think they called it,
would keep the airplane out of a spiral, but I believe they both used a canted gyro.
The trouble with both of those is that it would take a lot of guts to let go of everything
and let the airplane do it’s thing. Maybe guts isn’t the right word. We work so hard
to develop habits that don’t need thought. The condition that puts one in a graveyard
spiral is not a well thought out and rational condition!
So far, the best answer seems to be training and practice. But nothing is perfect and
there will be accidents.
My number two son tells a neat story about a fellow who wrecked two airplanes (and
lived through both!) because he thought the gyros had failed when they hadn’t! The
first was a jet fighter and the second was a Turbo Commander. He flew military fighters
and professionally for many years before things were finally figured out. The last time
he thought the gyros had failed was in a Lear. He had a copilot who did know what was
going on and told the rest of the pilots what really had happened.
Like I said before, there is nothing quite as nice as a competent multiple pilot crew.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000630 220858 msg10409.tex]

239
2.2. AVIONICS-AP CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Brittain Industries
Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:33:33

Good Afternoon Ron, Rodger, Hal and All,

Once again, the list has come through!
Brittain Industries 3266 Sheridan Road Tulsa, Oklahoma 74115
918 836-7701
It appears that Gerry, or Jerry, Walters is the guy to contact.
My oldest son bought an S35 Monday which has a Brittain in it. He wants to, at least,
get it checked to see if it is practical to repair before installing something else. I haven’t
used one in at least twenty years, but they were nice units back then!
Thanks again to all!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000816 163333 msg12230.tex]

240
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.2. AVIONICS-AP

Brittain Maintenance
Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:03:57

In a message dated 11/27/00 3:21:15 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Where can one get this beast worked on?

Thanks,
Dennis Wolf

Good Evening Dennis,

The B-5 can be repaired by Brittain Industries in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
This subject was heavily covered on this site within the last couple of weeks. I don’t
have the address or phone number, but it was listed by others. My oldest son had his
Brittain B-4 completely rebuilt about a month ago and it works just as advertised.
If someone else doesn’t come up with the address and/or phone number, I will try to
get it from my son.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001128 000357 msg16817.tex]

241
2.2. AVIONICS-AP CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Brittain Maintenance
Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:42:24

In a message dated 11/28/00 3:43:37 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Mr. Gerry Walters Brittain Industries Tel: +1-918-836-7701

Good Morning Ron.

Thanks for the phone number for Gerry Walters.
I spoke to my son last night about his B-4 and he affirmed that it is working very well.
While it doesn’t have all the fancy capabilities of the modern units, it is performing all
of the functions that it’s sales brochure and operating manual say that it should and
doing those functions very well. It holds altitude, tracks the VOR or GPS, can hold a
magnetic heading and make standard rate turns.
Gerry had it for a week. He pulled every unit out of the airplane, rebuilt or replaced
every component and replaced most, if not all, of the plumbing. Gerry also made a
couple of flights with my son to adjust the unit in the aircraft. That was all for a cost of
less than $1100. His ’over the phone’ estimate for rebuilding the unit was 1200 to 1800.
It is refreshing to see a job come in below the estimate.
I did receive the charts you sent, sorry I haven’t replied sooner. Very interesting and I
hope to find the time to respond more completely.
Thank you very much.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001128 094224 msg16828.tex]

242
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.2. AVIONICS-AP

Brittain and Tactair Autopilots

Wed, 1 Nov 2000 22:56:49

In a message dated 11/1/00 9:07:43 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Hi gang, questions? I would like to install an autopilot in my ole girl? Do

the brittain and/or tacair need stc’s, or can they put in because of the type
certificate?
Mike Bourget C-GFPG 49 Bonanza

Good Evening Mike,

My quick perusal of the TCDS shows the Tactair T-1 listed as eligible for certification
on your airplane. There are no references to any of the Brittains for the A model.
I am reasonably confident that Brittain does have an approval though, and, if you
were to go to the trouble of installing one, I am confident that the paper work would
not be a problem. The son of the individual who was the driving force behind the
Brittain autopilot is still actively maintaining them. I imagine he has all of the necessary
approvals.
There is a young man in the Cincinnati area who is doing the same thing with Tactair
units.
My oldest son recently purchased a 1965 S35 equipped with a Brittain B-4. He took
it out to Tulsa and had it completely gone over by the current owner of the Brittain
autopilot design. It is working fine now and I imagine it will be usable for several years,
however, it has few of the characteristics that we have come to expect from modern
autopilots.
Had it not already been in the airplane, I doubt if he would have had one installed.
He has told me that he expects to replace it when finances will allow, but he wants to
get everything else set up to his liking before he pops for a modern autopilot.
I think the cost of installation would be such that it would be cheaper to buy one of the
new modern light weight units than it would be to put in a Tactair or Brittain, even if
you got the autopilot free.
I don’t have any particular unit to recommend, but if it were me, I would look for a
single axis roll unit that uses a canted gyro as a stabilization device. I would add to
that some sort of an altitude alerter to tell me when I was about to get off my altitude.
I think that would be the most economical and light weight means to gain automatic
flight capability.
If you are not comfortable without an autopilot that will maintain altitude, that will
almost double the cost and weight of the installation.

243
2.2. AVIONICS-AP CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

I find that modern winglevelers are good enough that a Bonanza will maintain altitude
quite well if it is properly trimmed and in reasonably smooth air. The tracking capa-
bilities are excellent, especially when they are following a GPS signal. While I do like
having altitude hold, I am comfortable monitoring altitude manually and an altitude
alerter would wake up even an old guy like me if I started to wander off.
Obviously, on my airplane the canted gyro would have to be mounted somewhere on the
panel where I could reach the controls, but out of my normal line of sight!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001101 225649 msg15605.tex]

244
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.2. AVIONICS-AP

S-Tec and Century IIB

Tue, 20 May 1997 21:29:28

To Frank Kelly,
About autpilots – I have a brochure I picked up at Sun ’n Fun that has the following
phone numbers for S-Tec—800 872-7832, 817 325 9406, FAX 817 325-3904 (There is a
note that the area code will change to 940 around June 1, 1997. Internet address –
www.s-tec.com
I don’t consider myself an expert on autopilots, but I do have some S-Tec equipment
in my Bonanza. I installed a PSS-60 pitch unit with altitude preselect and couplers,
electric trim, auto trim. and yaw damper in my airplane in 1991. They have been very
reliable with no service required in the 1000 plus hours I have used them. I fly with the
autopilot on at least 95% of the time. Disgusting but true. I have flown with varous
King autopilots and I really like the one I believe they call the KFC 200. I bought the
S-Tec ’cause it was about $8000 cheaper!
The only thing I don’t like about it is that it doesn’t have an altitude anticipator circuit.
When the aircraft is rolled into a standard rate turn, it will lose 40 or 50 feet before the
correction is put in then when it is rolled out it will gain about the same before it puts
in the correction and gets back to its altitude. My autoplot mechanic told me that King
was the only lightplane autopi;ot with the anticipator feature at the time I purchased
mine. There may be others now.
It really isn’t too bad. It’s about like flying with a student that is a little slow on his
scan. About the time you are getting ready to make a hint that maybe he should look
around, in comes the back pressure. For the $8000 difference I can put up with it.
I use a Century IIB for roll control. It uses the horizon for reference while the S-Tec
uses a canted gyro. I personally prefer the displacement control of the horizon over the
rate based canted gyro. Different strokes for different folks!
You asked for a personal opinion and that is all this is.
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970520 212928 msg00911.tex]

245
2.2. AVIONICS-AP CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

S-Tec and Century IIB

Mon, 8 May 2000 09:40:27

In a message dated 5/7/00 11:54:40 PM Central Daylight Time, Ernie [email protected]

writes:

Use an STEC AP it uses the electric TC as its primary roll input

Ernie Ganas

Good Morning Ernie,

You are correct, and that is one of the options. However, many autopilot experts feel
that an attitude based roll autopilot is superior to a rate based roll autopilot.
At the time I installed my current electronics suite, I talked to S-Tec because theirs was
all electric. It was one of the S-Tec engineers who explained the difference to me. He
recommended that I retain the Century IIB that I already had and add the S-Tec PSS
pitch coupler, altitude hold, altitude preselect/warning, electric auto/manual trim and
yaw damper units.
It was his opinion that the IIB was an operationally superior unit to the one they used,
but that their canted gyro based sensor was cheaper and more reliable.
I retained a Century I that I had so as to provide the more reliable canted gyro as a
back up to the IIB. The rest of the stuff was set up to be able to be used with either
roll unit.
There are a couple of issues that complicate adding an S-Tec roll unit in lieu of my IIB.
I like having the capability of using altitude hold without the primary roll unit and the
folks at S-Tec with whom I have discussed this within the last year or so tell me that
their current boxes are not certificated for that type of operation. I think I could get it
approved, but I am still looking for another solution.
S-Tec is definitely still in the running if I can’t come up with a better attitude based
solution!
Thanks for the comment.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000508 094027 msg07812.tex]

246
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.2. AVIONICS-AP

S-Tec and Century IIB

Mon, 3 Jul 2000 09:07:32

Jack wrote:

We have recently had a failure of the Turn Coordinator in our F33C and
our S Tec 60 - 2 would not turn on. The test lights would light, but it
would not engage in any mode. Could it be that the S Tec is smart enough
to sense the proper operation of the TC???

Good Morning Jack,

The Turn Coordinator IS the sensing device for the S-Tec autopilot. If it has failed, you
have no autopilot. If it doesn’t have the sensor, it IS smart enough to let you know!
As you may be aware, I do not care for the canted gyro as a flight instrument, but I
think it is perfectly adequate for a stabilization device for a low cost autopilot. That is
what most of the low cost autopilots and wing levelers now use.
The S-Tec folks have developed their whole line around that type of stabilization. It
works well in that application and is very reliable and economical. But, everything fails
eventually.
Having the autopilot use the same instrument that we fly by reduces the redundancy of
the system.
If the autopilot is using the same instrument that we consider our primary ”last ditch”
instrument it can be particularly disconcerting!
The King and the top of the line Century autopilots use the horizon as the primary
sensor. If you lose the horizon, you lose the autopilot.
My airplane had a Century IIB roll unit and a Century I wingleveler installed when I
bought it. That was a fairly common Beech factory installation of the day.
The beauty of that is that if the Century IIB fails, you still have the wingleveler as a
back up.
I wanted to retain that capability, but I didn’t want that TC on my panel! I moved the
TC, which is the sensor for the Century I, over to a position above the glove box. That
way, I can still reach the controls, but it is out of my normal line of sight.
I then installed a proper T&B in my normal scan area.
The Century IIB will become unusable if either the attitude gyro or the heading gyro
fails. The Century I, just like an S-Tec, will become unusable following the failure of
the TC. If all of the above fail, I am confident I could fly the airplane adequately via
the T&B. If that is no longer usable, I guess it just wouldn’t be my day!
I have practiced using just the GPS. It can be done, but would take some more time

247
2.2. AVIONICS-AP CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

and practice for me to gain the confidence that would make it as comfortable as partial
panel with a T&B.
In the days of yore, we would practice holding a heading of south with just the compass.
No gyros of any kind available. It could be done, but I put it in the realm of one of
those things that can be done when under the hood and with a safety pilot on board.
I don’t know if I could hack it for real. The GPS thing is easier for me than flying a
southerly heading on the compass, but neither is as comfortable as flying the T&B.
I am sure that there are conditions that would overload any of us regardless of the
equipment we have available.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000703 090732 msg10471.tex]

248
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.2. AVIONICS-AP

Solid State Sensors

Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:27:37

Good Morning All,

A couple of years ago, we had a rather complete discussion concerning solid state attitude
indicator devices.
At that time, they seemed to be used primarily in air carrier style and priced back
up attitude instruments. The cheapest I saw was around $25,000.00. I believe B.F.
Goodrich has one that sells for around $45,000.00.
During my wandering around at Sun ’n Fun, I came upon the autopilot unit being built
by Jim Younkin strictly for homebuilt aircraft.
For those of you who don’t know Jim Younkin, he was the lead designer, inventor and
all around autopilot guru for EDO and then Century during their heyday.
After retirement, he turned his attention to building replica aircraft and doing fabulous
restorations.
A couple of years ago, he became frustrated with the lack of availability of state of the
art autopilot equipment to be used in his replicas and restorations.
He has designed, and is now manufacturing, a new line of completely solid state units
to meet that need.
I spoke with him and looked at the units he has available
They look great!
The servos are about one-third the size and no more than half the weight of the ones
used on my S-Tec.
The complete three axis stabilization device is mounted within a standard sized instru-
ment case which also includes all of the computational devices including the vaunted
GPSS style intercept capability. All control functions are on the face of the instrument.
No gyros in the conventional sense at all. Nothing to mount other than the panel con-
trol unit and the servos! He is developing a DG style indicator, which he hopes to have
available this fall, that uses the solid state position sensors to provide heading.
The prices are approximately half what S-Tec is getting for the same capability and a
little less than Century’s lowest.
I would hope that the manufacturers of certificated autopilots are at least studying the
technology so that we may eventually gain the use of such modern equipment.
Did any of the rest of you see Jim’s stuff at Sun ’n Fun?
I think I understand how a ring laser device works, but these things are just some sort
of a chip which senses rotation. One is placed in each axis or plane, — pitch, roll and

249
2.2. AVIONICS-AP CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

yaw.
Rumor is that each sensor is less than fifty bucks when purchased in reasonable quantity.
Can any of you electronic experts enlighten us as to how this stuff works?
If it were approved for we poor spam can drivers, I would have ordered one at Sun ’n
Fun!
When I asked about getting something like that certificated for my Bonanza, Jim showed
me something he made up which attaches to the control column on his Twin Comanche.
He just lays it on the back seat of his airplane until he wants to use it. It clips between
the two control shafts with plastic clips, and he snaps a little arm to one of the control
wheels to provide roll capability. He showed me the unit and it looked easy to do.
I was so excited I forgot to ask if he has worked out anything similar for pitch and yaw!
I suppose that isn’t practical for a dummy like me, but the devices he has available for
homebuilts look wonderful.
Check it out at: www.trutrakflightsystems.com
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010414 102737 msg07696.tex]

250
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.2. AVIONICS-AP

Which Autopilot?
Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:26:18

In a message dated 9/17/99 9:04:55 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

So the question... If you where installing a new AP in your plane which

one would you choose?

I would look closely at the S-Tec equipment.

Their devices are not as sophisticated as the Allied Signal stuff and use a canted gyro
for stabilization instead of an horizon as does the King and the more expensive Century
models.
I have had an S-Tec PSS 60 with autotrim, yaw dampener, approach coupler and altitude
preselect installed in my Bonanza since 1991 with absolutely no service required in over
1700 hours of operation. The yaw dampener did not work when first installed, but it
was replaced immediately with a new unit and that has worked fine ever since.
The S-Tec stuff is not exactly leading edge technology, but it appears that the simplicity
has paid off in high reliability.
I do have some Century equipment as well, and while I think the units I have do their
job very well, getting any service from Century has been an unpleasant experience.
It has been slow and incomplete requiring that things be sent back repeatedly until they
were finally fixed.
I don’t have any recent experience with Allied Signal stuff.
Hope that helps!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990917 122618 msg08566.tex]

251
2.2. AVIONICS-AP CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Yaw Dampener Operation

Sun, 20 Feb 2000 23:33:08

In a message dated 2/20/00 9:45:06 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I have just installed the S-Tec Yaw Dampener in my K-35. I have a few
questions on its use:

Good Evening Steve,

Here goes!

1. The small trim control that is a part of it, it seems to be very sensitive
in adjustment, is yours that way? How do you use this control?

I would say that it is sensitive, but I don’t find it objectionable. I generally adjust it in
small increments of a couple of degrees of rotation at a time until the inclinometer ball
is steady in the center.
I don’t adjust it often, sometimes not for several flights. If I note that the ball is not in
the middle, I give it a small tweak, then give it a few minutes to settle in.
I doubt if it varies an eighth of a turn for years at a time.

2. Do you use the on or auto position? Do you ever have it on for takeoffs
or landings (not withstanding what the manual says)?

With very few exceptions, I keep it in the auto position. I don’t like the feel of it when
I am hand flying the airplane. Having said that, I have to admit that I have had it on
and not noticed it was on until I was in the landing approach and started to drop a wing
for a crosswind landing. The rudder resists my effort and I realize I have forgotten to
turn it off! I guess it isn’t all that bad!
I never intentionally have it on for landing and I certainly would not have it on for
takeoff!

3. At altitude, is it always on in your plane?

Not always, I generally use it only when the autopilot is on, but I probably fly with the
autopilot on at least ninety-five percent of the time!
In moderate to heavy turbulence, I generally fly with the autopilot on, but I ride the
controls to dampen it’s inputs. Worse than that and I turn it off and just try to minimize
the control inputs.
When I click the autopilot off, it goes off as well, automatically, but I will occasionally
turn the yaw damper to the manual on position during those very rough conditions.
My ego still tells me I can do a better job myself if I am really working at it. I like to

252
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.2. AVIONICS-AP

keep in practice.
But I would buy it again.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob

Thanks, Steve
[ARTICLES/20000220 233308 msg03247.tex]

253
2.2. AVIONICS-AP CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Yaw Dampener Worthwhile?

Sat, 18 Sep 1999 01:20:37

In a message dated 9/17/99 1:42:34 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

yaw dampener, approach coupler

How much to you use and/or recommend these two features?
Thanks.
-jts Arlington, TX

Good Evening John,

I use the yaw dampener about 90 percent of the time I am flying. I have it wired so
that it is normally in use any time the autopilot is in use and I use the autopilot at least
ninety per cent of the time I am in the airplane. Probably more! The approach coupler
does not get as much exercise, though I use it any time I am shooting an ILS either in
actual conditions or for practice. The only time I fly an approach by hand is when I am
taking a check ride.
When I was gainfully employed, I tended to fly approaches by hand whenever our oper-
ations specifications would allow me to do so.
Now that I am unemployed, I find that I tend to use the autopilot a lot more than I
did in ”the good old days.” I suppose that is because I paid so much money for it that
I want to get my money’s worth!
I do not tend to use the yaw dampener if I am not using the autopilot though it does a
nice job even during a hand flying session. I feel that I can do as good a job as the yaw
dampener IF I have nothing else to do. Should I be heavily worked so that my mind and
attention are on something besides dampening the yaw, the dampener will do a better
job than I!
Dampening the yaw is a technique that takes considerable practice and it is not intuitive.
It must be taught and practiced. I would say that if your finances can stand it, the yaw
dampener is a very worthwhile addition. If you have more time than money, learn to do
it yourself and keep out of situations where you will be so busy that you cannot handle
the yaw yourself!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990918 012037 msg08591.tex]

254
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.2. AVIONICS-AP

Yaw Dampeners and Big Iron

Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:28:02

In a message dated 2/22/00 8:08:28 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Well Old Bob, with due respect I will tell you that the B720, B707, DC8
and early B737’s all use the Sperry SP30AL or its derivative. That means
Pitch, Roll and Yaw Control from individual computers, servos and ac-
cellerometers. This autopilot uses an integral yaw damper incorporated
into the rudder boost package that may be used separately or in conjunc-
tion with(series) the autopilot. Having had a personal relationship with all
the equipment mentioned, on this I speak the truth.
Jim N.

Good Evening Jim,

Well, young Jim, I have never flown the 707, but I do have a type rating in the aircraft.
I have flown left seat in all the others listed along with the SE 210, B-727, B-767, B-747
and DC-10 plus a bunch of piston types. I don’t have any idea what brand of autopilots
were in any of them except that the 737 was the first one I flew which had a two axis
autopilot backed up by dual yaw dampers. I don’t think anyone had earlier 737s than
we did! I certainly can’t say whether the airline I flew for had any different equipment
on board than did the ones you flew, but I will guarantee that the question was one
which was used on the oral exam for the type rating. Otherwise I would never have
known!! On this I speak the truth!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000222 212802 msg03372.tex]

255
2.3. AVIONICS-APPROACH CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

2.3 AVIONICS-APPROACH

256
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.3. AVIONICS-APPROACH

Marker Beacon Receiver Required?

Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:24:05

In a message dated 6/7/00 4:01:26 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I’m working on my IFR ticket as well (about to go take the written). From
what I have read so far, is the marker beacon receiver actually required for
the ILS? Having it inoperative doesn’t affect your minimums (I understand
it once did). You need some way of identifying the outer marker, but that
can be done other ways (approach dependant though).

Good Afternoon Frank,

The marker beacon has always been considered to be a portion of the ILS, though
there are many ILS approaches that do not have an outer marker due to difficulty in
finding a site on which to place the marker transmitter. In those cases, there is always a
designated means of checking the point at which a marker would otherwise be located.
In addition, a radar qualified and equipped controller may tell a pilot when he is over
that point. As you say, it is approach dependent, but there are a lot of ILS approaches
where the controller will either be unable or unwilling to give you a check when passing
the outer locator site. If you have an ADF and if there is an NDB located at the outer
marker site, that may be substituted for the marker beacon. I think that if you filed
an IFR clearance which included a plan to execute an ILS approach that required a
marker beacon and didn’t have marker beacon on board, you would liable for a careless
or reckless citation. Probably wouldn’t happen unless there was an incident.
I think that, considering the price of a marker beacon receiver, it would be a reasonable
addition to Jerry’s airplane if he wants to take the training in that airplane.
That doesn’t mean that conditions could not be found where a marker beacon receiver
would be unnecessary for an ILS approach.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000607 172405 msg09276.tex]

257
2.3. AVIONICS-APPROACH CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Sandel and GPS display

Wed, 27 Dec 2000 15:26:46

In a message dated 12/27/00 11:55:35 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

When the map is displayed on the Sandel you still get the CDI along the
bottom and the G§is on the right side with my current settings. So I don’t
feel compelled to switch the map off while flying an approach.
David

Good Afternoon David,

Some people seem able to concentrate on both the CDI and the map at the same time.
I have found that I require that my full attention be on the CDI when flying a tight
approach. For me it is easier if the moving map is elsewhere, but that is why both
options are available.
For those of you who are capable of using both at the same time, that option is there.
For guys like me, that have to work a little harder to keep things centered, we can have
a full uncluttered view of the needles. Isn’t the new stuff wonderful?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001227 152646 msg18454.tex]

258
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.4. AVIONICS-ENGINEMONITOR

2.4 AVIONICS-ENGINEMONITOR

259
2.4. AVIONICS-ENGINEMONITOR CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

CHT Probes
Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:51:15

Good Morning Eric Poole,

In a message dated 11/13/98 9:48:44 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

Not at all ... we got the Tanis system and, later, the JPI700 engine monitor,
and all we had to do was trade the JPI screw-in probes back to them for
a set of spark plug gasket sensors. No extra charge, and no particularly
unusual extra effort putting them in.

I didn’t even mention the use of spark plug gasket sensors for the CHT temps as I dislike
the installation so much.
Sparkplug gaskets should be replaced often. The recommendation is that they be re-
placed with new every time the plugs are removed. If they are not replaced, they should
at least be annealed to soften them for proper sealing. That will eventually make the
gaskets too thin and then they MUST be replaced.
The use of spark plug gasket sensors means they either will rarely get replaced or they
will eventually not seal well. I have owned engines on which I had one or two spark plug
gasket heat sensors mounted and always made arrangements to eliminate them as soon
as possible.
I know that many people have used them for many years with no difficulties, but since
there are other (in my opinion better) options, I would not install them on my airplane
or recommend them to others.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981113 125115 msg06912.tex]

260
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.4. AVIONICS-ENGINEMONITOR

CHT Probes
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 13:41:33

In a message dated 1/6/00 10:12:43 AM Central Standard Time, ottis [email protected]

writes:

Bob JPI makes a CHT Adapter probe that allows use of the Tanis heater
in the thermo well - its really slick - It gives you the true CHT and lets you
use the Tanis heaters. List price is $75

Good Afternoon Otis,

The adaptors work well, but I still think I would go with either the band heaters or
the valve cover heaters. Seems to me that either would supply more even heat than the
Tanis probes in the CHT wells. In addition, you will still likely need some place for the
factory cylinder head temp probe. That is where I would use the adaptor. At seventy
five bucks a crack for the adaptors, the bands or the valve cover gasket heaters might
even be cheaper!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000112 134133 msg00674.tex]

261
2.4. AVIONICS-ENGINEMONITOR CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Insight Verses JPI

Sat, 20 Jun 1998 12:33:54

Good Afternoon Ed Mabry,

In a message dated 98-06-20 09:31:29 EDT, you write:

Any suggestions or recommendations from the group?

I have the GEM system along with a Shadin fuel flow unit in my airplane and it works
fine, however it seems to me that JPI has been much more aggressive in improving their
units than have Insight and Shadin.
Gem does not provide fuel flow information but JPI offers that option.
There are also some advantages to JPI for installation in aircraft with limited panel
space. With the use of one instrument for multiple functions, there is some difficulty
with getting all of the information displayed at the time you want to see it. Takes some
time to learn how best to manage it, but I still like the JPI best.
My current recommendation to most people is to go with the JPI.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980620 123354 msg03207.tex]

262
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.4. AVIONICS-ENGINEMONITOR

Insight Verses JPI Verses Shadin

Wed, 3 Feb 1999 13:00:56

Good Morning John,

In a message dated 2/3/99 11:41:08 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

JPI was a breeze to deal with. Real people, real answers, real service. At
least for now.

That has been my experience with JPI also. In some ways I like the Shadin/ Insight
setup better, but I really like working with the JPI folks better than Insight and MUCH,
MUCH better than dealing with Shadin.
The Shadin technical people seem very helpful If I can get to them. It is the folks in the
sales end that are so hard to deal with.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
PS I have had pleasant relations with the Electronics International folks also.
[ARTICLES/19990203 130056 msg01842.tex]

263
2.4. AVIONICS-ENGINEMONITOR CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

JPI Reset Problem

Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:47:25

Good Afternoon Curt Powell.,

In a message dated 98-06-22 13:32:24 EDT, you write:

added a JPI to my H-35 about a year ago. Works quite well. Only problem
I have seen is that sometimes when I switch on my landing lights, it resets
the JPI. Anyone have any ideas what the problem could be?

Sounds like a voltage spike, If you have the precision voltmeter function you might try
watching it while you switch on the landing lights or try hooking up a good Simpson
analog volt meter. They are usually easier to catch a spike on than the Flukes or other
digital meters. I don’t consider myself qualified to discuss electrical systems deeply, but
I would think there might be some problem in the voltage control circuitry causing a
voltage spike and that can knock out sensitive little computer programs such as the JPI.
Most such units do have an overvoltage protection circuit built in to protect it from such
spikes though. Have you checked with JPI to see what their thoughts are?
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980622 134725 msg03233.tex]

264
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

2.5 AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

265
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

AN Style DG
Tue, 23 Jun 1998 11:59:07

Once again to Paul-79B,

I meant to comment on the gyro, but sent the previous tome too soon!
In a message dated 98-06-23 05:59:26 EDT, you write:

The DG is the horizontal rotating type and will have to be ditched over
the side

If you are describing an AN gyro of WW II vintage, don’t be in a hurry to ditch it

unless it is not working properly. They are vastly higher quality than anything available
today and it is much easier to fly precise headings than with the newer small upright
face units. The fact that it turns like a compass is a little disconcerting at first, but I
fly both types regularly on instruments and find no difficulty switching back and forth.
They are different enough looking that you tend to fly each as it is meant to be flown.
The major problem is that there are no parts, even bearings available to repair them
and not too many technicians who know how to do so. Of the few shops that will repair
them, many do no more than clean out the dirt and repaint them before sending them
out as an ”overhauled” unit. If you can find a competent instrument person willing to
open it up, clean and oil it, (If they are willing to do so, they probably will not put their
name on it or even give you a receipt. I would offer cash and not expect any paperwork)
they can be excellent instruments. If it is definitely on it’s last legs, I would replace it
with one of the newer units, but look it over carefully first.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980623 115907 msg03267.tex]

266
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

Compass Rose and Swinging a Compass

Sun, 28 May 2000 10:30:27

In a message dated 5/28/00 9:10:50 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Jack Hirsch wrote: Turned out I had to use the same technique on the
rose because it was not correctly aligned with magnetic North - learned
the hard way, finally reverted to the nautical way, plotted results, and
discovered compass rose painted on ramp was off by a lot.

Good Morning Glenn and All,

Compass roses will only be accurate on the date chosen as the base date for the declina-
tion used. I know the declination in the USA has changed as much as four and one half
degrees in the last forty years or so, possibly even more somewhere. If you are swinging
a compass on a compass rose that was laid out very accurately during WWII it can be
quite far off today!
That is one of the reasons why the courses as delineated by our VORs don’t always
match the courses given by our GPSs. The VOR courses were labeled when the VOR
was installed, but the declination has changed. The course still goes to the right place,
it’s just that the magnetic courses listed are no longer correct.
The Agonic line was running through Goshen, Indiana when I first learned about such
things. It is now about half way between Chicago and Moline, Illinois.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/20000528 103027 msg08829.tex]

267
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Desirability of DG
Tue, 4 Jul 2000 19:13:47

In a message dated 7/4/00 4:49:54 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Recently I was on a flight (my airplane, a friend flying) where the DG went
south taxiing out for departure. We both agreed, no big deal. We covered
it up and went on our way.
So how can someone say that a DG is more important than an attitude
indicator (of which I have 2)?.

Good Evening Mike,

Well, my first three Bonanzas had a DG but no attitude gyro at all. I flew them IFR
all over the country and never felt the need for an artificial horizon. I had dual T&Bs,
the required rate instruments and that nice stable, but non-required, DG.
Now what does that mean as far as what is more important, the DG or the horizon?
I would have to say that it depends!!
I found the DG very helpful. It was a lot easier to turn to a heading than to make timed
turns. The timed turns worked, but the DG was easier and faster to use.
If it was still legal to fly without a ”full” panel and I had a choice of either a DG or an
attitude gyro, but not both, I would still take the DG.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000704 191347 msg10528.tex]

268
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

Digital Tach
Sun, 21 Sep 1997 15:26:06

Bill Fleming,
Check with Horizon Instruments, Inc , Fullerton, Ca – 800 541-8128,
I have not yet installed one, but it looks like an easy installation and all reports have
been very favorable. Electronics International also has an approved digital tach that
seems to work well. The owner of E.I. is a Mooney devotee and all of his approvals are
in Mooneys first! The guy who owns Horizon is a Bonanza type so you know where my
prejudices are.
The E.I unit has a higher threshold for time recording to start (I think it’s 1300 RPM)
than the Horizon one. Both of them record time at straight clock rate when above the
trigger RPM so you don’t get the variable time recording as you do with a mechanical
tach. ( Most Beech tachs record at 2375, higher RPMs show more time and lower RPMs
log less than actual.)
I don’t believe the E.I. unit has any ”diagnostic” capability but I haven’t checked re-
cently.
Incidentally, some of the digital tachs on the market only read to the closest 10 RPM
and others are accurate to one revolution per minute. The guys that have the 10 rpm
limit say that it is better because the gauge doesn’t jump around with small variations
in RPM. I like the more precise ones - BUT - Different Strokes For Different Folks!!
They are nice to have.
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970921 152606 msg01773.tex]

269
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Electronic Tach
Fri, 25 Jul 1997 08:45:40

Hi Eric,
I don’t have a copy of the specs on the Electronics International tach with me just now
but my recollection of a conversation I had with them at Sun N’ Fun this year is that it
is approved as a replacement tach.
The presentation has a digital readout in the center of the instrument with a series of
small lights arranged in a circle around the periphery of the instrument, these provide an
analog presentation by lighting up clockwise as the RPM goes up. I believe the digital
is accurate to the nearest 10 RPM and the timer records when above 12 or 13 hundred
RPM. As I remember the unit also has a flight timer function and also will record the
highest RPM reached during a flight.
I installed one of their volt/ammeters a few years ago and the address I have for them
is 12620 S.W. 231st Place, Hillsboro, OR 97123. Phone: (503) 628-9113 I am not sure
that is current, but it should be worth a try.
The Horizon Instruments 2 1/4 inch unit has what I consider to be a nicer looking analog
presentation as well as the digital and I think theirs is accurate to one RPM. The last
time I checked it was not certified as a replacement instrument only as supplementary
though the manufacturer claims some have been approved on a ”local” approval basis.
The Horizon unit records time from engine start to engine shutdown. They claim that
is an FAA requirement and that the EII unit does not comply with the rules! Oh well,
check with them and see what they say.
Just as an aside, I purchased a Horizon 2 1/4” instrument a couple of years ago but have
not yet installed it because I am waitng till they get it approved. I will probably buy an
EII unit and stick it in some time this year if Horizon doesn’t get theirs approved soon.
I prefer the time NOT being recorded at idle. Whether that is proper or not I am not
sure but I like it better. Mickey Mouse reasoning isn’t it?
Both manufacturers also have a manifold pressure gauge in the 2 1/4 size. I f you decide
to install that you would have to find someplace for a small fuel pressure gauge calibrated
as required by your POH and the aircraft specs to replace the one in your combination
manifold pressure and fuel press/fuel flow unit. There is some diagreement among
various Feds and AIs that I have spoken with as to the legality of that modification.
Check with your AI.
I went to the 2 1/4 inch instruments several years ago to free up panel space and am
happy with the presentation but not with the quality of the mechanical tachs that I
have been able to locate at reasonable prices. That’s why I am going to change to the
electronic units.
I have been quoted about a thousand bucks apiece for the units used in the current

270
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

production model 36s and the electronic ones are less than half that amount. You could
probably find some used ones much cheaper.
Long answer for a short question.
Bye
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970725 084540 msg01364.tex]

271
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Electronic Tach
Fri, 23 Jan 1998 18:44:29

Good Evening Greg,

In a message dated 98-01-23 18:20:04 EST, you write:

I’m curious how the unit detects failed mags? Does it connect to the P-lead
somehow (more wires through the firewall, or to the mag switch?)
What happens if you loose power?

Relatively easy installation. You eliminate the tach shaft altogether and connect a wire
to each P-lead at the mag switch, a few more for power, ground and control and it’s in!
If you lose power you lose the tach.
I’ll bet you can set the power now within 50 RPM by the sound alone can’t you?
No big deal.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19980123 184429 msg00490.tex]

272
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

Electronic Tach - Recording Flight Time

Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:12:47

In a message dated 9/20/99 10:36:26 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I think that would have been the right way to do it.

Best Regards,
Bob Newman Warrenton, VA 1968 Bonanza E33 ”N917CE”

Good Evening Bob,

All of what you have stated is as I have found when I questioned both Horizon and EI
about their method of recording the time.
It seems this is one of those areas where there are a lot of differences of opinion among
various FAA entities.
There is a reasonable amount of precedence for using a strut switch to record flight and
engine time, though even the legality of doing that is questioned by some of those folks
who are here to help! The airlines have done it from takeoff to touch down for years!
There is also some discussion as to what RPM should be used as the RPM of record
when computing the flight time.
If the engine is legal to operate continuously at 2700 RPM, why shouldn’t a tach which
records one hour after sixty minutes at that RPM be OK?
The one method that nobody disputes is correct, is to look at your watch and record the
flight time in the engine and airframe log or other records. That is the way it was done
before the advent of recording tachometers. There would certainly be nothing illegal
about placing a recording tach (or just the hourmeter portion thereof) somewhere in
the aircraft, including somewhere that it could not be seen from the cockpit, and using
that indication in the same manner as most of us have been doing for many years for
maintenance purposes.
An approved electronic tach could then be used without paying any attention to the
hours recorded thereon!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990921 001247 msg08669.tex]

273
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Electronic Tach - Recording Flight Time

Tue, 12 Oct 1999 17:50:34

In a message dated 10/12/99 3:42:24 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

This was my accessment as well. I am curious however on how EI can get

away with a start setting of 1300 rpm, where Horizion starts at 800. This
does not make sense that the FAA would apply different rules to two very
similar products.

Good Afternoon Txgroup,

Not really all that unusual! Different folks at a different FAA office.
There is a lot of disagreement among the FAA personnel as to how engine time should
be logged. Some are adamant that all time from engine start up to engine shut down
should be considered as full running time.
Others are very happy with the method that most, if not all, airlines have used for as
long as I have been around. They log the time from takeoff to landing. No taxi time
counted, but the time in the air is full time regardless of the power used.
The recording tach is a relatively recent innovation. The Hobbs meter was used by many
flight schools to record the time not only for rental purposes but for engine and airframe
time as well. The kicker is that they often had TWO Hobbs meters installed. One that
went on when the oil pressure came up and one that turned on with a strut switch when
the wheels were off the ground. The renter or student paid by the oil pressure Hobbs
and the maintenance was in accordance with the strut switch unit. All VERY legal!
Many helicopter operators accomplish the same thing with one Hobbs on the oil pressure
switch and another on the collective.
Another factor is that tachometers can be purchased that record at many different
RPMs. A case could be made that the engine is approved to operate at some maximum
RPM continuously and that the tach should record a full hour only at that specific RPM.
In the case of an IO-520 or IO-550 that would be 2700 RPM.
I know of no regulation that says that the airplane cannot have two tachometers. I also
know of no regulation that requires that more than one tachometer be within sight of
the pilot.
I personally like the Horizon tach the best of the lot. If I ever decided to install one,
I think I would place it in the most usable position on the panel and relegate the
mechanical tach to a position completely out of the way. Possibly not even on the panel
and maybe not even in the cockpit.
I see no requirement that the Horizon time be used for maintenance purposes as long as
some other method is available. That method could be as easy as using a log book and

274
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

making entries (isn’t that an unusual idea?) or using a recording tach affixed elsewhere,
like in the engine compartment!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991012 175034 msg09335.tex]

275
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Electronic Tach/ mechanical

Wed, 21 Apr 1999 16:43:15

In a message dated 4/20/99 3:44:32 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

There is also a minor ”hit” on total hours when an airplane is sold, but is
10% more time really gonna make that much difference in the price, or the
desirability? I don’t think so.

Good Evening All,

If the number of hours recorded are going to worry you, just install a Hobbs meter
wired to the gear strut switch or a wind vane. It will then only log actual time in the
air. Forget about tach time! Write the Hobbs time in the maintenance logs! There
is nothing in any regulation that you must have any sort of time recording device on
the airplane. Hobbs meters and recording tachs are for our convenience to avoid having
to log every flight in the aircraft log. While there are some FAA types that will claim
that full hourly time should be recorded from engine start to engine shutdown, there is
considerable precedent in only logging airtime as do the airlines world wide.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS I think the Horizon is a great unit, I also like the EI one.
[ARTICLES/19990421 164315 msg03951.tex]

276
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

IFR Flight Instruments

Fri, 12 Nov 1999 18:26:52

In a message dated 11/12/99 4:03:33 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

John, I ment that as a joke .

I have my clock on the yoke, and use my lap for the app plates. So far this
works fine for me.

John Small wrote:

On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:23:45 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

Wear a watch g
Seriously, you find that adequate? However I don’t think this satisfies the
regs.

Well, now you two have given me an opening to reminisce a little.

Back in the late forties, I was instructing for a small Piper dealer and was the only guy
there who had an instrument ticket. I talked the boss into allowing me to install a turn
and bank in any airplane I was likely to fly at night or on long cross-countries. While it
didn’t quite fit the requirements for full IFR without a clock and rate of climb, I figured
the T&B along with airspeed, a sensitive altimeter and a compass was enough that I
could get by without a visual reference if need be. For time and timed turns, I carried
a large pocket watch with a sweep second hand that was equipped with a nice metal
fob on a fairly long strap. I could stick the fob behind the instrument panel or other
convenient protrusion and the watch would hang dutifully on the panel to serve what
needs I had. It even served as a secondary slip indicator.
Worked for me!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991112 182652 msg10531.tex]

277
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Loss of Control, AP, and Turn Coordinators

Mon, 5 Mar 2001 09:47:41

Good Morning Mike,

Since you asked, here is the comment.
In a message dated 3/4/01 2:23:34 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

I have the turn coordinator in my plane - it runs the B-1 AP.

Fact number one. Your AP has a standard Turn and Bank instrument mounted in a
canted position so as to be sensitive to both roll and yaw. That provides an excellent,
low cost, sensor to drive a simple autopilot.

Me and an instructor took it up one day and put the airplane in every
unusual attitude (legal) to see if the AP would fly out of it. It did. Tried
it in accelerated stalls - worked. I don’t know what would happen if I got
inverted. It didn’t tumble at 90 degrees.

Fact number two. Since the Turn Coordinator is a development of, in fact just a repo-
sitioning of the case of, the standard Turn and Bank rate gyroscope there is nothing to
tumble. It will work just fine inverted. The airplane would eventually recover, provided
it doesn’t come apart and there is enough altitude available.
That is one of the reasons it makes such a nice unit for the low cost wing levelers.

If TC are so bad - why do we got em?

We ”do got em” because someone noted that the canted gyro would give an early signal
of a coming turn by showing that the aircraft had rolled even before it yawed. On
modern stable airplanes, especially those with interconnected controls, a control input
to stop the roll should keep the airplane from turning which is the generally accepted
”best” action to take to avoid entering into a ”grave yard spiral.”
The canted gyro was hooked to a little artificial horizon look alike airplane symbol to
show a wings level indication when the aircraft was not rolling or yawing. In order to
gain government approval for the new instrument to be used in lieu of the then standard
needle style rate of yaw instrument, it was tested on a bunch of non pilots.
The result of that test showed that a non pilot would perceive that a turn had been
initiated in less time using the TC than they would using a standard Turn and Bank
instrument.
It seemed like a good idea at the time.
There are some of us who subsequently came to feel that the TC does not provide the
type of input to a trained aviator which will aid him/her when a state of confusion exists
in the pilots mind as to what is happening to his/her aircraft.

278
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

My current feeling is as follows. I have no way of testing the theory and it is mine alone.
1. The TC tends to make a pilots mind think in terms of wings level.
2. The Turn and Bank tends to direct the pilots mind directly toward a recognition that
the aircraft is turning.
3. Stopping the turn is the most important factor in preventing the type of incident
that claimed the lives of JFK,Jr., and Doctor Jacoby

Oh I know - pilots now days are not clever enough to fly with a T&B.

Mike, you are the only person that I have ever heard propose such a thing. I can’t for
the life of me understand on what basis you might have developed such a thought, but
that has certainly not been my observation.
I have studied the actions of pilots closely for the last sixty years.
Pilots today generally have a much better general education and there is a much greater
field of knowledge upon which to draw.
I would say that the pilots of today have a better chance of understanding the intricacies
of flight than ever before and I feel that those who follow will do even better.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010305 094741 msg05209.tex]

279
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Mechanical Tach Indicator Error

Sat, 18 Sep 1999 22:05:12

In a message dated 9/18/99 8:36:32 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Suggestions and experience is appreciated from the group.

Good Evening Allen,

The one comment I would like to make concerns the consistency of the indication on
mechanical tachometers. I have been using the electronic Prop Tach to check various
mechanical tachometers for about nine years now. I have found that not only are they
often quite in error, the errors are commonly nonlinear and are not even consistent day
to day!
I strongly suggest that no adjustment be made to any governor without an electronic
tach available to accurately determine the resulting RPM.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990918 220512 msg08620.tex]

280
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

OAT Ram Rise

Thu, 25 Jun 1998 15:13:33

Good Afternoon Bob Briggs,

In a message dated 98-06-25 14:27:08 EDT, you write:

I’m going to have to fly through the same airspace at different airspeeds
one of these days to see if my F33A’s OAT thermometer changes like theory
predicts.

Don’t forget about Ram Rise. Your aircraft OAT reads two to four degrees centigrade
higher than the True Air Temperature due to the speed of impact. When you are getting
touchy about comparisons, it can be significant.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980625 151333 msg03363.tex]

281
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

OAT Ram Rise

Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:34:50

Good Afternoon Bob Briggs,

In a message dated 1/29/99 11:45:58 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

There is a theoretical rise in indicated temperature due to airspeed for a

probe located in moving air. It is probably too inconsequential to influence
the placement of a probe for general use, but some scientist trying to verify
theory might want it in the slipstream.

This rise is substantial. It is why Outside Air Temperature (OAT) corrected to Ram
Air Temperature (RAT) should be used when calculating TAS etc.
Take a look at the directions for your Jeppesen whiz wheel and it explains it all!
The rise for a normal Bonanza cruising speed is around three or four degrees Fahrenheit
[ARTICLES/19990129 133450 msg01437.tex]

282
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

OAT Ram Rise

Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:51:15

In a message dated 1/29/99 1:28:26 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

I assume your statement would be related to indicated air speed, and would
be valid for an IAS somewhere in the 140-160 knot range.

Right on Tom!
My statement would have been better if I had said: ”It is why Ram Air Temperature
(RAT) corrected to Outside Air Temperature (OAT) should be used when calculating
TAS, etc.”
My Jeppesen whiz wheel shows that for an indicated airspeed of 150 Kn., the mach is
about .234
The Ram Rise is about 2.5 degrees Centigrade at 142 knots and 3.5 degrees Centigrade
at 168 knots. I’ll let you convert that to Fahrenheit, but I think that is pretty close to
3 or 4 degrees.
The whiz wheel that I have is about forty years old and I do remember Ray Lahr,
the designer of Jeep’s wheel, stating that there were some minor errors in some of the
calculations on his early effort but I would imagine that is closer than most of us would
ever want.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990129 175115 msg01455.tex]

283
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Oil Pressure Gauge Line Restrictor

Thu, 9 Jul 1998 23:15:44

Good Evening Bob Newman,

In a message dated 98-07-09 23:03:34 EDT, you write:

I am wondering if a skill person could weld a plug in the fitting, and drill
it with a small drill. I would also welcome any other ideas on this.

I have not done it in the situation you describe, but in the past I have added a restrictor
by tapping a fitting for insertion of a brass plug and then drilling the plug. Worked great
but I am not sure if it would qualify as a minor alteration. I would be willing to sign it
off as such, but I would check with the AI who handles your annual before proceeding.
I would be hesitant to sign for a fitting that had been welded due to possible changes in
the composition of the fitting material.
The restrictor sounds like a good idea to me.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980709 231544 msg03570.tex]

284
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

Panel Configuration
Sun, 24 Dec 2000 14:57:26

In a message dated 12/24/00 1:36:34 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

So, what does the brain trust of the BeechNet suggest?

Good Afternoon Ralph,

I think the panel layout looks very nice.
Naturally, I am particularly impressed with your choice of a T&B located immediately
alongside of the Turn Coordinator, which I assume is the sensor for your autopilot. I
would probably have located that turn coordinator under the rear seat alongside the roll
servo and placed another T&B on the panel, but yours is undoubtedly a more rational
solution!
The next comment I have is one with which I have not yet come to grips myself.
My current Bonanza has a KCS-55 compass system and I have been very pleased with
the layout and usability, BUT!, I would not buy one today if I were outfitting an airplane
for my own personal use.
Modern navigation is pretty well a To-To situation. The advantage of the HSI for spatial
or situational awareness is mitigated by the modern moving map GPS units. We rarely,
if ever, have to fly a heading ’til intercepting a radial, especially if we have navigation
capability to fly direct to almost any intersection.
On those few occasions where that is required, we have the GPS moving map of the
GX-60 to tell us where we are and how we are doing.
The UPSAT GX-60 GPS receiver does not require that abomination called a resolver
which both the Garmin and King/Allied Signal/Honeywell units stick their users with.
With IFR sets from either Garmin or King, you are stuck with a resolver, so having an
HSI is not an operational disadvantage, but it is still heavy, complicated and expensive.
It seems to me, that the only real advantage of having an HSI is to combine the CDI
with the heading indicator and save one instrument hole.
That is very important, but it ends up being a very expensive extra hole in the panel!
I wish someone would build an instrument with just the raw data for the CDI on either
an Attitude Indicator or a Heading Indicator. If that ever happens, I would never
consider an HSI even if money and weight were of no consideration! It was a great idea
forty years ago, but not needed today.
For use with a resolverless GPS, such as the UPSAT, Trimble or Northstar, the HSI
becomes a bother, not an advantage. It adds extra unnecessary steps that are required

285
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

for the use of Garmin and King equipment, but that were engineered out by the other
manufacturers.
For my pocketbook, the HSI would be left with other relics of the past. Not only would
it save me money, weight and the need for remote mounted units, but it reduces the
effort required to fly a GPS approach!
Just my opinion!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001224 145726 msg18274.tex]

286
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

Panel Configuration
Sun, 25 Feb 2001 09:52:54

In a message dated 2/25/01 7:23:41 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Mike, how about the altimeter (to the 2nd hole to the right of the yoke
column)? It’s still going to be very visible. —– Original Message —–

Good Morning Jerry,

Would you mind if I put in my two bits worth while we are waiting for Mike to answer?
The altimeter may be OK there, not good, but OK.
You will find the altimeter wherever it is because you have a direct need for the infor-
mation. I would try to keep it within one instrument space above or below and no more
than two instrument spaces to the left or right of your primary direction instrument.
That is the range of the easiest scan, but somewhere else will work for something that
you will search for as hard as you will search for the altitude information.
However, you earlier spoke of moving your TC off the primary panel, that is what I
would like to comment upon.
You may already know that I think you should junk the TC and install a proper Turn
and Bank, but disregarding that, whichever gyroscopic turn indicator that you have in
your panel should not be used only in the case of a failure of some other instrument.
It needs to be part of your everyday, ordinary, instrument scan.
It should be checked every time that you adjust the bank angle or are checking the
status of your heading for any reason whatsoever. That way it will serve as a continuous
crosscheck of the other instruments as well as help you to comply with the regulatory
requirement concerning minimum rates of turn where those minimums are applicable.
Please keep the instrument in as primary location as it is possible to do, regardless of
whether it is one of those wonderful, stable, useful Turn and Bank instruments or one
of those lying, detestable, Turn Coordinators!
Even the TC is capable of saving your bacon if it is included in your normal scan.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010225 095254 msg04522.tex]

287
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Primary Engine Instrument Replacement

Thu, 23 Nov 2000 12:37:32

In a message dated 11/22/00 5:00:11 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Based on your lead comment, I followed up with a call to EI, Tel. #

541-318-6060, they have moved from Hillsboro, OR to Bend, OR. Lo and
behold, EI has a line of Primary engine instruments under their STC,
that are replacements for those gauges that the FAA has designated as
mandatory. These primary gauges are CHT (on all aircraft equipped with
cowl flaps) and turbine inlet (TIT) gauges. All digital display.

Good Morning Ken,

That is good to know!
Thanks for the effort. I have been using an EI loadmeter for the last ten years or so
and have been very pleased with the quality of the equipment and the service I have
received. If I were in the market for any new instrumentation, I would certainly consider
their units.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001123 123732 msg16611.tex]

288
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

Purchasing a T&B
Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:10:22

In a message dated 9/18/00 11:23:31 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

As if by fate, my TC is now TU, and, after reading your position a few

times it sank in...
I will replace my TC with a T and B!
Now, all I need to do is find a source for the T and B that provides a good
quality instrument at a reasonable price. In the catalogs, the T and B is
more expensive than the TC!
Can you provide any recommendations?

Good Afternoon Bill,

Unfortunately I cannot. My local instrument guru tells me that all of the relatively low
cost T&Bs and Turn Coordinators are made by one manufacturer in Puerto Rico. The
other manufacturers just attach their private label.
As is true of so many instruments today, the quality is nowhere near the quality of the
equipment built for the use of our fighting men during WWII. Not only is the quality
low, but the actual gyroscopes are smaller now than they were in the days of yore!
The stuff going to the military today is so expensive that I can’t even consider such a
purchase.
When the Turn Coordinators were first put on the scene, if you looked behind the
panel, you would see a standard T&B mounted at an angle. That was attached to a
front plate device that connected to the autopilot, panel indicator or both. Since it took
up substantially more panel space with the canted large gyro, there was an effort to
minimize the size. That was done and the much smaller gyro is now mounted canted
inside the can which is about the same size as all of the rest of our instruments.
I have never had one of the new ones apart, but am told that the new T&Bs and the
new Turn Coordinators all have the same internal components. They are just oriented
differently and hooked up to a different style display.
The last time I bought a new T&B, my guru ordered three of them. We checked them
on his turn table and such, kept the best one and returned the other two.
I would establish a good relationship with a quality instrument shop and heed his advice.
I don’t remember what I paid for mine, but I do know that the price from the instrument
shop was no more than what I would have paid at Aircraft Spruce and I gained his
expertise on checking and returning the rejected units. I think it cost me around five
hundred bucks.
I have a two and a quarter instrument in my Bonanza. I have purchased several of those

289
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

used for two to three hundred bucks apiece. I have had enough failures of those used
instruments that I have decided to go with new full size instruments from now until
something better comes along.
Sorry to bear such bad news, but my guru tells me that the current crop of T&Bs are
no better or no worse than the current crop of Turn Coordinators. If you happen to get
a good one they may run forever, if you get a lemon, they aren’t worth trying to repair.
The best would probably be a surplus WWII unit that had never been used. It could
be cleaned and lubricated by a local technician and would probably last a lifetime.
Unfortunately, I doubt if there are any left! Who knows, nose around and see what you
can find.
I haven’t done much research on this myself. I have relied on my local instrument guru.
He has always steered me in a pretty good direction, but he no longer deals with AN
gyros and other older equipment. It isn’t that he doesn’t like them, it’s just that parts
and documentation are no longer available.
If you, or anyone else, is aware of a reasonable source of a quality T&B or Turn Coor-
dinator at a practical cost it would be good to hear about it.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000918 151022 msg13677.tex]

290
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

Purchasing a T&B
Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:02:28

In a message dated 9/20/00 6:44:42 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I was thinking of backing this up with a smaller T&B by moving my clock

but after what you have said about reliability I think not.

Good Evening John,

There are better T&Bs available than the ones I was using. The good full size ones
are currently about 2400 bucks apiece. I have seen prices for new two and a quarter
instruments as high as five grand. I may have been giving the little instrument an
undeserved kick in the pants as I have been buying used ones at the flymarts. Since
taking my instrument gurus advice and not bothering to even install any that don’t
sound smooth, my failure rate has been reasonable.
Incidentally, I asked today if there were any T&Bs or TCs available in the low price
market that were better than those built in Puerto Rico. He told me that Mid Continent
had purchased the Puerto Rican company and were now producing them in the USA.
Quality appears to be reasonable.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000920 210228 msg13789.tex]

291
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Remote Compass
Sun, 24 Dec 2000 15:36:58

In a message dated 12/24/00 2:22:24 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I agree completely except for one caveat. Having a remote compass drive
the DG is very very nice. Especially in these old Bonanzas that get mag-
netized (like mine).

Good Afternoon Mike,

That is a good point.
However, I have generally been able to find a mounting spot for a compass that allowed
me to get it adequately compensated. It occasionally has meant relocating something
that was messing it up, but I have tried to keep a good working magnetic compass in
the airplane so that I would have it available in the event of a power failure.
If all of the fancy toys are working, about the only need I have for the magnetic compass
is to calculate how strong and from what direction the wind is blowing. The ’Track
Made Good’ on my GPS gives me all of the data I need to fly a course and if I use just
a little knowledge of the general wind pattern, I can even set the DG based on the GPS
good enough to shoot an approach.
Once again, the magnetic compass is fast becoming something we only need if we lose
electrical power! On the DC-8 We had them mounted in the overhead panel and could
only see it if we set up a little set of mirrors. It was considered strictly a device to be
used in case of power failure.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001224 153658 msg18280.tex]

292
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

T&B Verses Turn Coordinator

Fri, 3 Dec 1999 15:14:06

In a message dated 12/3/99 12:23:48 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

So I’m not confused, what’s the difference between:

1. turn and slip (needle & ball) 2. turn and blank 3. turn coordinator
#1 has a roll gyro while #3 has a roll and a yaw gyro, right? Is #2 the
same as #1, or the same as #3, or something entirely different?

Good Afternoon John,

Now if we are going to get precise and technical, I will have to beg off, but this is how
I remember it in the time that I have been associated with aviation.
In the twenties and thirties (before my time!), there were turn indicating devices avail-
able. I have seen European models which had needles hinged at the top and presented
turn information by the movement of the needle at the bottom. Most of the ones that
I have seen that have been used in the USA had a needle hinged at the bottom and a
wide needle which would line up with a ”dog house” at the top of the instrument when
the aircraft was not turning. Some of the manufacturers added an inclinometer within
the instrument. That would be a turn indicator with an inclinometer provided internal
to the instrument and I would suppose it should most correctly be called a turn and
slip instrument. I do believe that was how they were referred to by the English, but in
the USA, that was usually called a Turn And Bank. About the time of early WWII,
someone got the bright idea of adding a couple of extra squares or dog houses to the side
of the center dog house. Prior to that development, a standard three degree per second
turn would be done by initiating a turn such that the side of the needle was lined up
with the single dog house side. Adding the extra indices to the instrument allowed for
a more sensitive instrument as the standard rate was then met when the needle was at
the ”double needle” turn position. Prior to that, a double needle width turn would give
approximately six degrees per second but the pilot had to estimate when the needle was
two needle widths away from the center index.
During WWII both types were produced and used. There were some iterations con-
cerning two minute turn and four minute turn units and not all manufacturers were
consistent in their use of the term. When the Jet fighters were first introduced there
was a spate of T&Bs built with extra dog houses and other accouterments to adapt to
the higher speeds but since the military was starting to train to attitude flying rather
than rate flying, it became a moot point.
For several years the industry used almost exclusively the Turn and Bank Instrument
with a single dog house at the center flanked by an index on either side which was located
one needle’s width away from the dog house. With the needle lined up with the index
at the side, the aircraft would be turning at the rate of three degrees per second.

293
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

That is what I believe you are referring to as unit # 1.

Turn and slip or needle and ball is definitely more descriptive of the instrument, but it
was referred to by most in the industry as a Turn and Bank unit.
Your question number two states turn and blank. Could that be a miss spelling of turn
and bank?
Number three is referred to as the Turn Coordinator.
You further ask:
#1 has a roll gyro while #3 has a roll and a yaw gyro, right? Is #2 the same as #1, or
the same as #3, or something entirely different?
All three have but one gyroscope. I believe what you refer to as 1 and 2 are the same.
Number three is the same as number one except that the gyro is mounted at an angle
so that it is sensitive to both roll and yaw.
In fact, the first ”turn coordinators” were standard T&B units mounted with the forward
end higher than the rear. I mentioned this in my previous note on this subject. They
were later adapted to show the artificial horizon style of presentation for use as a flight
instrument.
If you will take a standard electric T&B and supply it with electrical power, you can
demonstrate to yourself how this stuff works.
Hold the running unit completely upright with the fore and aft axis parallel to the earth.
Then, without any bank input, rotate the unit in the horizontal plane. It will show a
turn by displacing the needle in the direction of turn. The faster the rate of turn, the
more the needle is displaced. Stop with the unit still perfectly level and the instrument
will indicate neutral with the needle right in the center. Carefully rotate it around it’s
fore and aft axis without any right or left input and the needle will stay right in the
center. It only responds to turn, not to roll at all!
Now tip the unit so that the forward end, the end away from the glass face, is about
forty degrees above the back end. Try the same series of experiments as before, but
with the front end elevated. It will still show a needle displacement when it is turned
right or left. But, when it is rotated about a horizontal axis (that axis would now run
from the top of the instrument at the face to the bottom of the instrument at the rear
of the case and be parallel to the surface of the earth even though the instrument itself
is tipped up) and the instrument will show the same indication for the rolling motion
that it showed for the turning motion!
That is the beauty of the canted or inclined gyro. It is a much cheaper way to get
information for a simple autopilot. But it doesn’t differentiate between roll or yaw.
That isn’t important for the auto pilot function, but I think it is detrimental to good
instrument flight.
If you repeat the experiment using a turn coordinator, but eliminate the canted test,

294
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

you will find that when you only introduce roll, it will show the same indication as if
you had only introduced turn. If you roll it without any turn and the hold it still, the
indication will slowly return to the indicated level position and yet the instrument will
b rolled to the side. It is telling you a lie! The T&B will never lie to you!
I contend that the best reaction to a turn only excursion in flight is different from the
best correction that should be applied for a roll only excursion and that is why I think
the T&B is the better of the two for partial panel flight.
If the airplane doesn’t turn, it is unlikely to get in trouble.
NO one EVER confuses a turn needle for an artificial horizon!!
Once again, I seem to be the only person in the country who feels this way and I may
well be wrong, but I have tried to convince all who I care about, to learn to fly the
airplane well by reference to the rate instruments and specifically while utilizing the
classic turn needle which responds only to turn inputs.
The folks who learned to fly with the rate instruments had very little trouble adapting
to the full panel. It is not true the other way around!
Folks who learn on tailwheel equipped airplanes have little trouble adapting to trigears.
Attitude flying is rather like learning to fly on a tri-gear equipped airplane. It is cheaper
and more time efficient, but I don’t think it can ever be construed as better.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991203 151406 msg11513.tex]

295
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

T&B Verses Turn Coordinator

Sat, 1 Jul 2000 11:34:20

In a message dated 7/1/00 8:22:29 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Hello Old Bob - I find the TC to work fine for me for partial panel. Mine is
quite stable. Something that concerns me is I observe some TC’s installed
which are nearly unusable because the bearings are set up too loose. The
symptom is the little airplane is unstable and it thrashes about with even
a little turbulence; making it rather useless.

Good Morning Bob

Even when the instrument is properly adjusted and working at it’s peak. It still tells
lies.
It cannot differentiate between a yaw and a roll. In fact, it was specifically designed to
make the same indication regardless of whether the airplane has yawed or rolled.
The same characteristic makes it work very well as a low cost sensor for an autopilot.
The trouble is, that the human aviator has a brain that works better if it knows what
is going on.
The most important thing in attaining and maintaining control of the aircraft is recog-
nizing when it is turning.
If the aircraft is properly rigged, everything is working perfectly and the TC tells you a
wing has dropped, it is an indication that a turn may be following soon. But how do you
know whether a wing has dropped or a turn has started? You don’t! There is no way
to tell which has occurred until information is gained from supporting instrumentation.
On the other hand, if a turn needle tells you the nose has turned, it has turned! There
is no ambiguity. Why do I feel that is important?
The human needs to be thinking turn, not roll!!
It is the mind set of the receiver of the information that is important.
He or she should be thinking turn, not roll.
If the airplane does not turn you will survive.
I want an instrument that tells the truth, not lies.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS I am not an instrument man, but I think you will find it is the dampers that are
being adjusted rather than the bearings, but I could be wrong!

296
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

[ARTICLES/20000701 113420 msg10428.tex]

297
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

T&B vs. Turn Coordinator

Fri, 3 Dec 1999 12:32:54

Good Morning All,

I returned last night to find some four hundred messages on my E-mail, most of them
in some way related to the tragic crash in Newark.
My quick scan noted several references to back up instrumentation and at least one
request asking how others have dealt with that quest.
A couple of folks noted my personal preference for a Turn and Bank instrument over
the now almost universally used Turn Coordinator instrument.
I do have comments considering what has been done to provide redundancy but I want
to discuss my reasons for choosing the T&B first.
To make sure we are all on the same track, the Turn Coordinator is a development of the
T&B. The first units were used as a stabilization device for an autopilot developed by
one of the major corporations. I believe it was ITT, but someone else may have better
information.
That autopilot used a standard T&B mounted within the magic box of the autopilot,
not on the instrument panel. I believe it was mounted at an angle of about thirty-five
or forty degrees. By mounting the control box in the same plane as the level position of
the aircraft, the T&B ended up in the ”canted” or ”inclined” attitude.
One of the tenants of mounting the standard T&B in the days when those were a primary
instrument, was that it must be mounted so that the face of the instrument was in a
vertical plane parallel to the vertical axis of the aircraft. This was necessary to eliminate,
or at least minimize, the effect of roll on the instrument. The T&B was designed to tell
the operator that the aircraft was turning, nothing else.
By mounting the instrument with the front end (the part toward the nose of the aircraft)
above the back or face that we read, it became sensitive to roll as well as turn. I
understand that it has been tried at many different angles. I am not sure what is
currently used, but believe it to be somewhat less than forty-five degrees. Thirty-five or
so is what comes to mind.
Someone felt that there might be an advantage to presenting information to the pilot in
a similar manner and the Turn Coordinator was born.
Whether the airplane is rolled or yawed, the Turn Coordinator indicates something!
Seems like a good idea doesn’t it? If a wing drops (roll) a turn is likely to follow. The
canted or inclined gyro would give an indication to the autopilot or the operator to take
action to stop the impending turn. Most of the early GA autopilots would use aileron
for that purpose and viola, we had the early wing levelers!
One of the first things that bothered me about the early Turn Coordinators was the

298
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

following effect. If a takeoff was initiated immediately following a turn onto the runway,
the Turn Coordinator would show a wing down indication even though the wheels were
solidly on the ground and holding the aircraft in a very stable horizontally level position.
A phone call to the manufacturer elicited the information that the unit was operating
as it was supposed to do. In order to make the turn coordinator modification to the
standard T&B usable, it was necessary to heavily dampen the response or it would
wiggle too much to be usable.
Over the years, different manufacturers have used different amounts of dampening, but
the Turn Coordinators still do not give as rapid a response to a yawing moment as do
the T&Bs.
The next thing that bothered me about the Turn Coordinator was the presentation
which was almost identical to that of the artificial horizon. I found that students often
tried to make pitch corrections while watching the instrument for verification of their
input.
This was not as big a problem for beginning instrument pilots as it was for very expe-
rienced ones who would take action by reflex borne from long experience rather than
thought on what needed to be done!
After several years of using Turn Coordinators for primary training and for recurrent
checks and training, I came to the conclusion that students who used the older T&B
for training and in normal flight, had a lot less difficulty with partial panel on recurrent
competency checks than did those who trained on and regularly used Turn Coordinators.
The T&B seems to take longer to learn to use, but gives better long term results than
the TC.
NO ONE has ever mistaken a T&B for an artificial horizon! That often happens with a
TC.
When the turn coordinator shows a ”wing down” indication, there is no way to tell if
the wing is down or a yaw has developed.
If the nose is not allowed to turn, the airplane will not spin in, spiral dive or grave yard
spiral into terra firma!
Don’t let it turn and, if the airplane is in trim, nothing drastic is likely to occur.
(As an aside, the argument could be made that if the wings are held level, nothing much
is likely to happen either. Think about the 747-400 that came within 70 feet of scattering
bodies and aluminum over San Francisco. He held his wings level, but because there
was no rudder input, the spoilers were extended, the airplane was descending and the
heading changed enough to take the aircraft off the track which was designed to take it
between the hills. If that pilot had not allowed the airplane to turn, it would have been
a non event whether the wings were level or not!)
I can’t imagine any instrument being more reliable than the standard T&B, though I
have had them fail.

299
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

It must be noted that I learned to fly instruments in the days when the use of an artificial
horizon and directional gyro was not allowed on the flight test.
That resulted in most IFR training airplanes not being equipped with either of those
attitude instruments.
Most small GA airplanes which were regularly flown IFR had either a DG or one of the
stabilized compasses added to make rolling out on a heading easier. Other than that,
we tended to use rate flying as opposed to the current method of attitude flying.
The military services during WWII equipped every airplane that was intended for IFR
flight with a ”full panel” and the airlines had used such a panel since well before the
war.
Shortly after WWII, the military officially started to train their primary students in
the attitude method of flight and somewhere in the late fifties or early sixties the FAA
followed suite.
I don’t know whether the old way or the new way is the best, but I do know that you
can turn out an adequate instrument pilot using the attitude method in less time and
therefore at lower cost than you can using the rate method.
I also know that instrument pilots who flew a couple of years and a few hundred hours
on the T&B, rate based panel before the days when the government mandated the use
of a full panel never have any trouble flying partial panel.
The same cannot be said even for very experienced pilots who have only flown partial
panel during training and checking.
The most difficult thing is to identify the failure of the artificial horizon. It is also very
difficult to fly partial panel when the failed attitude instrument is leaning over where it
doesn’t belong! Pasties or other cover-up devices are almost mandatory.
I would imagine that my confidence in the T&B is at least partially responsible for my
hate of the TC, but I also feel that I gave it several years to convince me otherwise.
As to what has been used in the past as back up devices, John Miller, who will be 94
this month and still fly’s his Bonanza IFR several hundred hours a year, told me about
a device which he carried in his old C model. He rigged up a venturi on a board that
was sized to fit in the pilot vent window. The venturi was connected by a rubber hose
to a standard vacuum T&B which he then placed on the top of the instrument panel.
The first airplane on which I regularly flew Captain was the Convair 340. It was an all
electric airplane, no air system at all! Northeast had one on which a wrench or some
other tool had been left on the electrical compartment and it shorted out the whole
shebang. All of the emergency and battery busses as well as normal things.
These guys were in a whole lot of hurt! Fortunately, they were on top in the late
afternoon and had some time to think things out. They felt that they knew their
position fairly well and I will shorten this dissertation enough to state that they let

300
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

down through a four or five hundred foot overcast and broke out over Long Island
Sound. They recognized their position by landmarks along the shore, flew to and landed
at LaGuardia. It was by then quite dark and no one knew they were on the ground until
someone complained of an unlit airplane taxiing on a taxiway!
That bothered me enough that I took a twenty-eight volt T&B, taped three nine volt
”B” batteries around it, equipped it with a switch and carried the thing with me in my
flight bag. I could place it on the glare shield with the forward end setting on a coffee
cup holder that Convair had conveniently supplied and I had a comfortable method of
flying the airplane! Worked like a charm!
My first two Bonanzas had a directional gyro, but no horizon, That was the most
common configuration before the Feds required a full panel. Both airplanes had come
that way from the factory and were equipped with a vacuum T&B as well. I added an
electric T&B and felt that I had as much redundancy as anyone could ever want!
My current airplane has only one airpowered instrument, the attitude indicator. That
supplies the information for my number one autopilot. My number two autopilot is a
turn coordinator that uses a canted gyro for information.
I feel very comfortable that I have sufficient back up for my type of flying. If I were to
have a complete electrical failure along with a failure of the pneumatic air system on
takeoff, I would probably lose the airplane. But if I were at altitude, I would get out one
of my hand held GPS units and use it to tell me if I was turning or not. Given reasonable
time to acclimate, I think it would be usable for going generally in one direction without
losing control, but I don’t think trying to comply with ATC instructions would be in
my repertoire.
I have practiced keeping it right side up with just the panel mount GPS, but I have not
yet tried it with the handhelds. My handhelds do not update anywhere near as well as
my panel unit.
I do have a standby alternator that will come on the line automatically following a
failure of the primary one. Hopefully there will never be a complete electrical failure,
but it did happen to that Northeast Convair and to one of our Musketeer instrument
trainers many years ago.
As to my personal minima, I fly to the FARs. I enjoy single pilot IFR and I like flying to
low minima. Shooting an approach to minima is fun and if the approach is completed,
it can be very satisfying. If a miss is required, that too can be a satisfying experience if
you have plenty of fuel and places to go. Always the opportunity for a new experience.
I have found that non completed trips often allow me to meet a lot of interesting folks
at out of the way places.
As has been mentioned by many others, single pilot IFR is a lot different than multiple
crew operations. Crew Resource Management is a neat catch phrase. What it amounts
to for the single pilot is organization to see that one does not try to do too much.
I find that in my current aircraft, I have so many options that it is easy to divide my

301
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

attention to the point that I don’t do a good job of flying the airplane. I must decide
what functions I really need and let the others go by the board.
One thing at a time for me.
Younger folks might be able to do more, but I think simple tasks are all I want to do and
not too many of those. If I am shooting a GPS approach, I may set up the VHF Nav
for something else in the area, but I don’t try to cross check unless I have a suspicion
that something may not be going well and then it would likely lead me to initiate a miss
to sort things out rather than trying to figure out what was going on that caused the
discrepancy.
I do have dual glide slopes which I tune for all low ILS approaches. They are mounted
side by side and I find them easy to cross check.
Remember that Personal Minima are just that! They are what works and feels comfort-
able for you
Well, I guess that is about all the space I am allowed for this week!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991203 123254 msg11490.tex]

302
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

T&B vs. Turn Coordinator

Sat, 1 Jul 2000 14:04:41

In a message dated 7/1/00 12:28:41 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Then doesn’t this relate to the previous question where you said the yaw
damper would keep the graveyard spiral coordinated? What would happen
if the yaw damper was doing its job? Wouldn’t the TC then be showing a
turn?

Good Afternoon John,

If I interpret your question correctly, yes, the TC would be showing an indication if the
airplane was turning. Stopping the turn by using the turn coordinator works!
The TC shows the same indication when the airplane rotates around it’s vertical axis
as it does when it rotates around it’s longitudinal axis
The yaw damper sensor reads only the displacement from neutral. It is basically the
same as the indication of the Ball in an inclinometer.
If you performed a perfect barrel roll, the yaw damper would never be activated. The
same is true if you are in a nice coordinated grave yard spiral. The yaw damper only
acts to maintain ”coordinated flight.”
If one were capable of doing an absolutely perfect ”slow” roll, the turn needle would
never wiggle at all! The TC would show that the airplane had rolled, but it would give
that information as an indication of a turn even though no turn had taken place.
During the ”slow” roll, the yaw damper would be fighting the pilots inputs and attempt-
ing to convert the slow roll into a barrel roll. That would probably result in a dish out.
Hopefully if you decide to try this in your Bonanza, you will do so with enough altitude
to effect a comfortable recovery!!
Anytime the aircraft skids or slips, the yaw damper is activated. It couldn’t care less
whether or not the aircraft is turning.
Just as another point to ponder. If you are flying a multiengine airplane on one engine
that performs best with the dead engine carried five degrees high, the turn coordinator
will show ”wings level” while the aircraft is in that stable ”five degree dead engine high”
flight. That is just what it should show, but the presentation tends to make people
think ’bank’ instead of ’heading’ and that is one of my big gripes with the instrument.
The turn needle gives the information that is needed to keep the airplane under control
with absolutely no ambiguity.
The TC requires interpretation to ascertain how it is being activated. In most cases
it does not matter. Proper application of the controls to return the TC to the stable
condition will work. But it is still telling lies!

303
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Why not use an instrument that has no ambiguities?

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000701 140441 msg10434.tex]

304
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

T&B vs. Turn Coordinator

Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:38:14

In a message dated 9/7/00 7:47:21 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Congrads on the new Turn and Bank. I just put in a brand new Turn
Coordinator. I get less confused with two little airplanes banking the same
way in front of me.
Joe Fisher P-35

Good Morning Joe,

I strongly applaud Steve’s decision to gain the safety of a Turn and Bank for his opera-
tion.
Maybe I have been less than clear when describing the reasons I feel the needle style
Turn and Bank has so many advantages over the Turn coordinator, or is it just that you
totally disagree with my thoughts?
You mention that you like to have both your artificial horizon and your turn instrument
look the same during a turn.
I think that is one of the main reasons folks these days have so much difficulty flying
partial panel when under extreme duress.
The Turn Coordinator just looks too much like an artificial horizon and yet it does not
respond to control input in the same manner as does the attitude indicator.
Nothing else on the panel looks even remotely like a Turn and Bank.
You mention that you like controlling the bank with both a turn coordinator and the
attitude indicator.
The bank isn’t what gets the majority of us in trouble.
It is the turn!
No one ever got into a graveyard spiral without turning.
Don’t turn and you will survive.
There is no argument that a properly rigged airplane with all components operating in
a normal manner will go reasonably straight if the wings are kept level. But, if anything
goes wrong that upsets that warm and fuzzy condition, all bets are off!
An engine out on one side or a gear door hanging open are just a couple of things that
could occur to upset that applecart.
In addition to the oddball things that might go wrong, one should remember that if

305
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

we do succumb to vertigo, our minds and senses will not be operating in their normal
smooth and rational manner.
We need something specific and simple to direct our attention to. That something
should be specific to the thing that will give us the most time to gain our normal
thinking capability.
My contention is that NOT TURNING is the single most important thing that should
be on our mind.
Leveling the wings to stop the turn adds an unnecessary step to the thought process.
Leveling the wings is a means to stop the turn, but it is not the number one goal.
Stopping the turn is that number one goal. Why should we add that extra step when
our mind is already so bogged down? It is a time when we should be single-minded and
concentrate on nothing but stopping that turn.
The Turn Needle shows nothing but turn. It is a single-minded instrument and fits very
well into our single-minded purpose.
Just stomping on the rudder will stop the turn in most airplanes, but that is not the
recommended method that most of us would suggest. Rolling and using the aileron, or
other roll control device, is certainly the preferred method, but the mind should be set
on stopping the turn and not just on achieving a wings level configuration.
The Turn Needle lends itself well to enforcing the single-minded concentration on the
turn that that is so important in those often confusing moments just prior to and dur-
ing that entry into a steep descending turn that has proved fatal to even some very
experienced aviators.
I am sure there are many who feel that my strong recommendation of the use of a
Turn Needle over the newer Turn Coordinator is merely a manifestation of an old timer
who resists change. Anyone who knows me is aware that I have constantly championed
the use of new improved methods whenever they become available. I think the GPS is
better than sliced bread and I happily threw out a very nice LORAN when I realized
how superior the GPS was to the LORAN.
When the Turn Coordinator was first offered it was in the form of a low cost method
of providing a stabilization sensor for a low cost autopilot. I applauded the technology
then and I applaud it now. I think it makes an excellent sensor for such a purpose.
When the Turn Coordinator was introduced as a panel instrument for use in place of
the T&B, I added them to our training fleet with the thought that it would be an
improvement.
However, subsequent events have led me to feel that they are not an improvement and
are, in fact, a detriment to safety.
I don’t think the instrument fits well with the way our human minds work when under
those rare moments of high stress preceding loss of control incidents.

306
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

I became aware of these shortcomings while observing the action of pilots not in initial
instrument training, but during recurrent training and requalification sessions.
Those who had trained initially on, and were still using, the Turn Needle seemed to
do better on the surprise failures than did those who had been trained on, and were
utilizing, the Turn Coordinator.
It was not uncommon to note an effort to apply a pitch correction while concentrating
on the Turn Coordinator instead of referring to the appropriate performance instrument
that should have been used.
That and other subtle deficiencies gradually convinced me that the use of the Turn
Coordinator in lieu of the T&B was ill advised.
I note that some within the FAA, and many other experts in the industry, are now
pushing to replace the Turn Coordinator with a standby Attitude Indicator. I think
that too is a mistake.
It is not unusual for an attitude indicator to have a failure such that it will show a
bank when the aircraft is not banked and yet it will still respond to a control input.
The natural way to determine whether an attitude instrument has failed is to observe
whether or not the aircraft is in a turn.
Nothing shows a turn better and more directly than a Turn Needle.
An ADF pointed to a station reasonably far away is a good back up as are any of the
various gyro (or even the new solid state direction devices) stabilized turn indicators.
I imagine there will be a device developed which will do a better job than the Turn
Needle.
If Burt Rutan has his way, we will have an autopilot on the airplane which will be so
reliable and redundant that the human pilot will only direct it and not be required to fly
the aircraft in the manner we utilize today. That goal is almost met by the new breed
of Air Bus from Europe. All they do is command the autopilot and it sets the limits
including one limit of no spiral dives allowed.
I was once petrified of the thought of full hydraulic controls with no cable back up, but
after a few years of flying an airplane equipped with hydraulic controls and a cable back
up, I found it relatively easy to accept aircraft that had no cable back up.
I imagine that someday I will be able to accept that autopilot which will be in total
command, but I don’t think it will be installed in a Bonanza in my lifetime.
Meanwhile, I have decided to add an extra T&B to my panel.
It is my personal opinion that Itzhak did exactly what I hope I would do when confronted
with a confusing situation.
I think he noted that things were not adding up. He then reverted to what he felt were
his last ditch, always tell the truth, instruments. His Turn Coordinator and his heading

307
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

instrument.
It appears likely that both of those had failed.
I have hope that by having two T&Bs mounted side by side, I will be able to recognize
the failure of one.
I have never seen a failure of a T&B where the needle would still wiggle.
If one instrument is wiggling and the other is not, I think that would be the easiest
differentiation procedure to accept that could be developed.
I don’t imagine I will change your, or many others mind, with this discussion, but if even
one more soul adds the extra safety of the T&B to his aircraft that Steve has attained,
I will consider the effort worthwhile.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000918 113814 msg13665.tex]

308
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

T&B vs. Turn Coordinator

Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:29:42

In a message dated 9/18/00 8:04:12 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I guess if we are in a flat skidding turn, the needle and ball will tell me
that since the needle will be centered and the ball will be on one side or
the other.

Good Evening Joe,

In a flat skidding turn, the turn needle would be deflected and showing a turn. The
ball, if one is installed, would be showing an indication on the outside of the turn.
A Turn Coordinator, in the same condition, would show a wing down indication even
though the wings were level. It would show the little airplane in a bank toward the
direction of turn. The ball would once again be toward the outside of the turn.

But wait, is it telling me a flat skidding turn or a flat slipping turn? The
TC would tell me that depending on which way the airplane is banked,
wouldn’t it?

By definition, the turn is a skid if the ball is to the outside of the turn. If the ball is on
the inside of the turn, it is a slip.
The Turn Coordinator will always show a ”bank” toward the direction of turn whether
the aircraft is actually banked or not.
Another example to think about. If your airplane is capable of doing a nice strong
airshow style knife edge and it is equipped with a Turn Coordinator, the TC would
show a ”wings level” indication throughout the entire length of the stable portion of the
knife edge maneuver even though the wings might be in a ”bank” as great as 80 degrees
or more. The ball would be on the bottom side of the instrument or toward the planet
earth.
Once again, the TC indicates only roll and/or yaw If the aircraft is neither rolling nor
yawing, it will show a ”wings level” indication regardless of the bank angle of the wing.
Nothing is easy, is it?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000918 232942 msg13697.tex]

309
2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Tumbling the Gyro

Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:59:14

In a message dated 10/23/00 10:26:16 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

In a message dated 10/23/00 8:19:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:
How steep a turn can you make in a Bonanza before you ”tumble” the
gyro? 45 degrees? More than that?

In my commercial training, I had to do opposing 50 degree bank turns.

I’ve had it past 60 a couple of times without tumbling. I haven’t rolled my
Bo, but there was some discussion a couple of months ago concerning just
that. What do you aerobats have to say:-)??
Dana Overall

Good Morning All,

It depends on the gyros! Some are non tumbling and will allow rolls and loops without
any problems at all.
Beyond that, there is some degradation of performance with age. I don’t have any
specific times or numbers to offer, but I have had gyros that seemed to be operating
normally during routine flight which failed when maneuvers that were still within the
sixty degree bank and 30 degree pitch limits were approached. When given a chance
to erect, they continued to operate properly for normal flight attitudes. If nothing else,
that would be a clue that they should be looked at by a technician.
Best to get the exact model and series numbers of your gyros and check with a knowl-
edgeable instrument man.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001024 115914 msg15290.tex]

310
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.5. AVIONICS-INSTRUMENTS

Used Instruments
Mon, 15 May 2000 12:00:12

In a message dated 5/15/00 10:30:01 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

From what Old Bob has said used T&B’s are questionable. However I
think your used RC Allen AI and my used AIM 305-1 AI does turn that
cost/benefit analysis back toward the AI.

Good Morning John and Eric,

Used instruments of any kind are a bit of a problem.
The best defense against getting poor used instruments is to establish a good working
relationship with a local instrument technician.
Many of the heavily advertised shops do little more than clean and lubricate an in-
strument that they then send out as overhauled. All it has to do is meet performance
standards at the time they ship it out to you. It is easy to issue a guarantee. They will
send you out another unit if you send the old one back until you get tired of taking the
thing in and out of the airplane.
A good technician can tell the quality of the used instrument by inspection or sometimes
just by listening to it run. It is well worth spending some money with a local instrument
shop to develop that relationship.
I buy my used and new instruments through my local technician unless he advises me to
order it from a supplier myself. That way, he is always available to evaluate the quality
of what we receive.
The last time I wanted a new Turn Needle instrument, we ordered three, tested them
all, then kept the best one of the three.
The two and a quarter inch turn needle that I currently have in my airplane is one that I
bought at a Sun ’n Fun fly market and took to my local techie for evaluation. It sounded
good to him and has been purring along for some six hundred hours so far. It has lasted
the longest of any of the small T&Bs that I have had. The others were from mail order
overhaulers before I saw the light!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000515 120012 msg08166.tex]

311
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

2.6 AVIONICS-MISC

312
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Avionics Advice
Wed, 24 Jun 1998 21:23:05

Good Evening Paul,

In a message dated 98-06-24 14:11:04 EDT, you write:

So lets say I decide to hold onto the KX170B as a backup comms/nav

where should I go Thanks Paul-79B

You definitely need a glideslope for the flight training. If your pocketbook can stand it,
a nice new KX155 or similar set would be nice. There is the possibility of getting one
added to your KX170B but the cost would probably be pretty high and the units have
not been manufactured for several years, so any that you purchased would be getting
quite old. But! Ask around, you may find a steal and that could be the cheapest way
to go!
I like Trimbles new NavComm set too but have no experience with it. I don’t know
what kind of a CDI they are using with it either.
I have a Terra set with Glide slope in my Piper Pacer. It is economical and has worked
very well, but I am not crazy about the electronic CDI indicator. I guess it might be
the wave of the future, but I am so used to needles that it takes me a few minutes every
time I fly the airplane to decide when to ”fly up” and when to ”fly down”! I suppose if
that were the only airplane I flew or if I flew it IFR more often it would become more
comfortable.
I would steer clear of Narco equipment due to service difficulties so that leaves the new
ones from Garmin and Trimble or the low cost Terra as options for the Allied Signal
KX155. I can’t recommend any over the other as I think they are probably all good
sets. Try to look them over and see what your son thinks of them electronically.
The KX155 is very expensive but it does have a good service history and the new ones
are well shielded for the GPS. I would not buy a used one if it was manufactured more
than two or three years ago due to the interference problem. The rectilinear CDIs are
nice to have but rather high priced so I wouldn’t hesitate to use the top/side hinged
units.
The next move would be to install the GPS and you really need to get out and look
them over and compare the prices. You should have your KX170B transmitter checked
for compliance with the requiremnets which became effective January of 1997. Many
of the older sets need some modification to be legal. I am not sure of the status of
the 170B but am sure that it is either OK now or the modification is relatively minor.
Incidentally if you do decide to add a glide slope to the KX170B and use it as your one
and only NavComm, I would not spend any money attempting to add flip flop tuning
or other after market additions to the set.
I think it is time you do some shopping!

313
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980624 212305 msg03317.tex]

314
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Avionics Advice
Thu, 25 Jun 1998 08:48:47

Good Morning Dwaine,

In a message dated 98-06-24 23:11:01 EDT, you write:

What service difficulties? I have had two Mark 12Ds with GS for 10 years
and have had to have service on one of them in that time. I didn’t want to
pay a local shop to educate them on the 12D so I shipped it to Narco in
PA. $175 later I had it back and 5 years later it is still working great along
with its mate.

Precisely as you say, the local shops generally do not like to work on the Narco units.
A few years ago, Narco cut off all of their dealers and would not discount parts or
anything else to them. They wanted all sets sent to them for repair. It almost put them
(Narco) out of business. They have since relented and are now actively seeking dealer
participation but not all shops have responded.
If your needs are such that you can wait for repairs, Narco is not bad to deal with. I
have a Comm 11 which I use as a ground Multicomm station and it needed repair a
couple of years ago during the ”no discount” days. My local radio shop shipped it to
Narco and the repairs were performed adequately and at a reasonable price within a
decent time frame,
If your local radio shop recommends a Narco then I would not hesitate to buy one. It
is advantagous to have a shop with which you feel comfortable. I have dealt with the
same people for the past thirty plus years and it is nice to be able to stop in and have
a loaner stuck in my airplane while my unit is being repaired. Not all shops will or can
do that.
Most of the Mark 12s were (and still are) great radios. You might have noted that I
suggested that Paul-79B at least investigate the possibility of having his early Narco
with the Glide Slope repaired as the lowest cost alternative. Even if the transmitter
were not serviceable, the Nav unit would provide what he needed and the KX170B has
an excellent and current transmitter.
I just wouldn’t recommend purchasing a set which your shop doesn’t like. Incidentally,
my local shop is once again dealing with Narco.
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980625 084847 msg03339.tex]

315
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Avionics Advice
Thu, 25 Jun 1998 11:47:14

Good Morning Alan Bradley,

In a message dated 98-06-25 10:25:01 EDT, you write:

However, I think there is a certain amount of sour grapes here, as Narco is

now a strong competitor in the repair business.

What you say is all very true.

I know that my prejudices are all affected by the fact that I have made my living in
aviation since I was fifteen years old. It pains me to see small airports dying and the
large airports discriminating against we small aircraft.
I personally try to arrive at the big high priced corporate oriented FBOs with capacity
to take on at least twenty gallons of their high priced fuel as I am appreciative of the
facilities that they provide. I normally try to stop at the little operators though, and
once again, try to be in a position where I can take on a reasonable amount of fuel
regardless of the price. It is somewhat the same situation with radio shops. If I am out
on the road and run into a difficulty which I really want to have repaired before further
flight, it is sure nice to have a small shop available. I know the empathy I have toward
the small operator is at least partially due to my having been involved in that business
for so many years, but it is also selfish of me in that I want them to be there when I
need them!
The primary reason I carry dual NavComms is so that I won’t have to delay a trip if
one fails as I have found it difficult to obtain convenient service while on the road. I
sure hate to see the situation get any worse.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980625 114714 msg03348.tex]

316
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Avionics Advice
Mon, 17 Aug 1998 11:40:52

Good Morning Tony,

In a message dated 98-08-17 10:13:12 EDT, you write:

Anyway since I am now going for new stuff in the panel...is there a better
audio panel/marker beacon combo to put in...was going to also look into
gps/comms...but want the second nav for ils approaches

Very sorry to hear about the theft. We really need a system whereby radios are tracked
by radio shops to stop the sale and installation of stolen equipment.
Since you now are faced with replacement, I would strongly suggest that you look at the
plethora of combination audio selector panels which are combined with a marker beacon
and a high quality isolation amplifier.
PS Engineering has a very good reputation and they actually supply other manufacturers
with their box which is then sold under other names. While I have no direct knowledgfe
of the product, one of my sons has one and several friends also are so equipped. All
reports have been complimentary.
I would suggest that you take the opportunity to go to one GPS and one NavComm.
Now that the FEDs have blessed the use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME there really
is little reason to have either unless you really like to listen to WGN or WBBM while
heading home!
I do like the comfort of two ILSs complete with two Glide Slopes when the ceilings get
down around two hundred feet or so but that is rather unnecessary.
There is something to be said for having a second VOR/ILS/GS unit as an aid to
dispatch reliability. One VOR receiver is still required for flight in most of the lower 48
so if you have two onboard, you could still continue if one quit. (After placarding it as
inoperative and making a log book entry of course.)
Hope things are going well otherwise!
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980817 114052 msg04407.tex]

317
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Avionics Advice
Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:39:30

In a message dated 7/8/99 9:27:17 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

There shouldn’t be any reason why you can’t do IFR training with kx175’s,
etc. You should have a DME and ADF, though.

Good Morning All,

Please remember that neither an ADF nor a DME is required for instrument flying or
instrument training.
An IFR approved GPS of at least enroute capability can be substituted for ALL DME
functions and all ADF functions except a non-directional beacon approach that does not
have a GPS overlay!
An IFR approved GPS can be purchased for a lot less money than an ADF and DME
and if the approach approved version is chosen, provides hundreds of additional approach
possibilities.
I would suggest that no funds be expended purchasing or maintaining ADF or DME
equipment unless you just like to listen to the ball games.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990708 103930 msg05770.tex]

318
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Avionics Advice
Sat, 7 Aug 1999 13:00:34

In a message dated 8/7/99 11:12:38 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I love my KNS-80 precisely because it is indeed so low tech – I can plant

a vor most anywhere given a sectional chart and my trusty yellow AOPA
plotter.
Between that and my wonderful Foster F14 Loran, I bet I can functionally
do just about anything you young whippersnappers can do with a GPS
(except for the GPS approach into San Carlos (SQL), that is).

Good Morning Howard,

I still have the KNS-80 in my airplane too. When it first came out, I couldn’t believe we
GA types could have such a wonderful piece of equipment. And for ONLY $4000 1970
dollars too!
For twenty years I happily plotted courses and figured out how to place waypoints to
provide direct navigation in the days before the FEDs decided to accept direct clear-
ances on the controllers authority. Then in 1991 I installed my first GPS. Absolutely
mindboggling!
An interesting feature is the cost comparison. The first Trimble IFR approach approved
box came out in 1994. It could be installed and approved at that time for around six
thousand bucks.
The list price at that time for a KNS-80 was eight thousand bucks. Most shops would
sell you one installed for that figure, but if you ordered it on a new Bonanza with a
factory installation, you would have paid the full eight thousand plus a couple of grand
more for the installation!
Since Trimble decided to get out of GA, I haven’t kept track of what the lowest cost
IFR approach approved set sells for, but I know it is less than the cost of an ADF and
a DME and directly competitive with big name producers VORs.
My big aim in life is not to convince everyone that they should run out and buy a GPS,
it is to try to inform everyone that it can be the cheapest way to go IF you have the
need for IFR capability and are starting from scratch.
As you mentioned, it depends!
If you want to execute a low approach to SQL, GPS is the only game in town. If I were
based at Grass Valley, California, an IFR approach approved GPS would be on my must
have list. To operate from Hayward, who needs it?
Happy Skies.

319
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990807 130034 msg06772.tex]

320
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Avionics Advice
Mon, 20 Dec 1999 15:59:11

In a message dated 12/20/99 2:21:53 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Now that everyone’s getting rid of their ADFs for GPSs, I’m assuming
that the supply of used ADFs should be increasing. Does anyone out there
have one you would be interested in selling? I’m looking for basic approach
capability on a budget.
Thanks,
Don Ellis N2929V 35 S/N D-313

Good Afternoon Don,

Unless you can get an older set for nothing or close to it, I would recommend giving a
pass to the ADF.
There are a few real good sets out there. The KR-87 is a tremendous unit. Should you
find one of those cheap it might be worth the effort to get it installed. But if all you can
locate is an old KR-85 with the separate sense antenna, I don’t think I would bother.
I have a KR-87 in my airplane and I suppose I will keep it until it dies or I need the
space for something else, but anything much older will cost a lot to install and maintain.
If your desire is to fly IFR on a budget, get one good VHF Nav Comm unit and a
good handheld GPS such as the Garmin 195. They are on sale almost everyplace now
because all of the ”latest, finest and fastest” gadget buyers are getting the fancy color
map equipped 250!
All that is required to fly IFR in the US National Airspace System is a single navigation
unit pertinent to the route to be flown and adequate communications for flight along
that route.
For practical purposes in the lower forty-eight, that means a VOR and a three hundred
and sixty frequency communications unit. Add a transponder and you can go almost
anywhere and shoot an approach to at least half of the airports in the country.
Acquire a handheld GPS and you can legally go direct just like the big boys and you
will always know precisely where you are. You can’t shoot an approach for which you
do not have the equipment, but how often will that affect your operation?
Most IFR flying is done enroute. If the weather at your destination is above the enroute
minima or at least above the RADAR vectoring altitude for the area, you can go to any
airport you want IFR. If you file to an airport that does not have an approach which you
are capable of executing, the only requirement is that you be able to name an alternate
that does have an approach you can fly.

321
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

I love having an IFR approach GPS and the capability to do all of the things it can do,
but if my budget wouldn’t allow all of the fancy gadgets, I doubt if very many of my
flights would be affected at all.
At the worst, it might be necessary to adjust a departure or arrival for a few hours or
maybe even a day, but I don’t think there has ever been a time when twenty-four hours
would not have allowed a VFR operation at any airport I have ever flown to.
I think money spent on a Garmin 195, or equivalent, would add a lot more to your
capability than would an old used ADF (I might bend a little if you could get a KR-87
with the latest style single unit antenna for about the same money as the 195!).
It doesn’t really require all that much equipment to add a lot of IFR capability to your
flying machine!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991220 155911 msg12122.tex]

322
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Avionics Advice
Wed, 5 Jan 2000 16:36:28

In a message dated 1/5/00 3:04:32 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

This whole discussion convinces me that I will keep my King RNAV since it
isn’t date dependant, and I can do lots of innovative point-to-point things
to get me where I need to be SAFELY and legally.

Good Afternoon Hal,

Thanks for the support! For what it is worth, I still have an ADF, RNAV, DME,
dual glideslopes and such along with my IFR GPS. As long as I have the room, weight
carrying capability, power to feed them and they are already paid for, I see no reason
to throw them out! All of the stuff is fun to have, but if the budget is a little stretched,
a little innovation and understanding of the system will provide a lot of operational
capability with very little equipment!
Happy Skies,
Old Coot Bob
[ARTICLES/20000105 163628 msg00266.tex]

323
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Avionics Advice
Sat, 22 Jan 2000 15:57:57

In a message dated 1/22/00 2:25:18 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

In an F35? Even my beloved J35 didn’t merit that kind of cash. You are
looking at $10,000+ in upgrades. Your airframe is at best worth $50,000.
All those upgrades will not translate into dollar for dollar increases in your
aircraft’s value.

Good Afternoon Alan,

I realize we all have different reasons for making whatever expenditures we make on our
toys, but I buy radios and instruments that will allow me to operate my aircraft in the
manner I feel is appropriate for me.
If I am flying my Bonanza or my Pacer IFR, the radio equipment that I install will be
based on that need and not on the total resale value of the aircraft.
If ones steed of choice is a Cessna 140 or a Beech King Air and it needs to be flown IFR,
shouldn’t the choice of equipment be based on the use?
I think the Garmin 430 is an excellent choice for a minimum equipped IFR aircraft.
I’ll bet I could find a fairly high number of folks around the country who are comfortably
operating 1947 straight 35s in at least a sophisticated IFR manner as you utilize your
A36. IFR is IFR!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000122 155757 msg01339.tex]

324
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Avionics Advice
Wed, 26 Apr 2000 13:04:03

In a message dated 4/26/00 10:39:58 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Chief Aircraft has a comparison of an all Apollo stack vs an all Garmin

stack at
http://www.chiefaircraft.com/Avionics/MfgAI/ApolloComparison.html

Good Morning Frank and All,

I was unable to call up that page and cannot, therefore, comment on Chiefs position.
One thing that I have always opposed is the interface on all Garmin and King/Honeywell
GPS units which requires the installation of a resolver to feed the heading information to
the panel unit. I have considered that to be a totally unnecessary redundancy. However,
the 430 presents a different situation from the rest of their units. Since it is a combination
VHF Nav as well as a GPS one, there is no redundancy involved. The resolver is required
for the VOR function, as it is for all VORs, and that means that no extra one has to be
put in for the GPS function.
In any airplane that has an HSI, the resolver function is less onerous than it is in aircraft
not so equipped.
My feelings would be to avoid any box that requires a resolver if I did not have an HSI.
Right now that seems to mean only an Apollo box would be acceptable.
Trimble is not likely a viable choice and there are rumors that Northstar may be giving
up the ghost. I sure hope that is not true. I liked the Trimble best and the Northstar
second best so I guess that means that no one else agrees with me!!
If the aircraft is HSI equipped, the resolver will still mean extra cost, but not as much
as if you don’t have the HSI. Once again, both the Garmin and the King/Honeywell
boxes require the resolver. All others (if there are any left) do not.
The 430 is the hottest selling box since the Mark 12 was introduced. You can’t argue
with success!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000426 130403 msg07100.tex]

325
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Avionics Advice
Fri, 28 Apr 2000 10:43:11

In a message dated 4/28/00 9:09:29 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I’m not totally versed on this but I understand that the Garmin 430 mated
up with a CDI doesn’t require a resolver.

Good Morning John,

It isn’t a matter of it not requiring a resolver, it just doesn’t need an extra one! Since
the 430 has a VHF Nav as well as a GPS, there has to be a method of telling the VOR
what radial the set wants to use. The same device is used to tell the GPS whatever
information is required.

I also understand that the KI-209A does the same thing. I believe the
GPSS takes an input from the Garmin 430. At least thats what I’m led to
believe.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the KI-209A will work just fine. Same thing, the set
requires the course information to be used for the VOR radial. Same deal.
I believe all of the panel mount Garmin GPS receivers in current production and most
of the older ones are equipped to provide the extra data that the GPSS unit needs to
do it’s thing. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the old KLN 88 might not have the
data, but it wouldn’t be as stable. The stuff they use has been available on the 429 data
stream from a lot of the older more sophisticated sets for many years. It wasn’t until
GPS started to provide the stuff in such a stable form that it became practical to use
the information as S-Tec is now doing.
Happy Skes,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000428 104311 msg07216.tex]

326
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Avionics Advice
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:49:53

In a message dated 1/18/01 10:44:01 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Nick Stratford wrote:

My dilemma: Is this airplane worth spending big bucks on a full panel
upgrade, or should I go for the bare minimum cost to bring back up to IFR
standards.
Well, I’m about to drop about $15K of avionics into my A model. Does
it make sense? No. However, over the past 8 years of owning this plane
I have already spent more in maintianing/updating/improving this plane
than I could ever hope to sell it for. In for a penny, in for a pound :-)
Frank Stutzman Bonanza N494B (yes, the moneypit) Hood River, OR

Good Morning Frank,

I know the feeling!
However, I have never tied the investment in gadgets to the price of the airplane. It
seems to me that the equipment I want in the airplane is a function of the use to be
made of the airplane.
If it is to be flown intentionally IFR (and I generally want the capability to fly my
airplanes IFR) it has to have at least the minimum equipment required by the FARs for
IFR flight.
Beyond that, it depends on the area in which it is to be flown and the dispatch reliability
that my operation requires.
Since navigational equipment pertinent to the area in which the aircraft is to be flown
is required, I consider a VOR necessary for IFR flight in the lower forty-eight.
Beyond that, it is a function of dispatch reliability. An IFR Approach Approved GPS
adds hundreds of possible approaches to the capability, but if one’s flying doesn’t require
operation to minima below VFR minima, you can get by very well with just the VOR.
Two VORs means you can legally continue if one VOR fails, so that adds tremendously
to the dispatch reliability!
And so it goes! We can rather easily justify almost any expense if we decide that our
time has value and that we have a need to be someplace else other than where we are.
My Stearman has a transponder and a Turn and Bank. For cross countries, I carry a
handheld GPS and handheld Comm. I don’t intend to fly it IFR, but if I should ever
stupidly get stuck on top of an overcast or do something else dumb which puts me in

327
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

cloud, that and my handheld Comm and GPS will get me safely on the ground where I
can worry about the legalities later.
Our Piper Pacer has a VHF NavComm, transponder and Loran. It rarely gets far from
home and that does allow IFR flight when required, but if one radio failed, it would
mean that the remainder of the flight would have to be VFR or the radio would have
to be repaired prior to continuing the trip. I do have an IFR Approach Approved GPS
that has been sitting on the shelf awaiting installation to replace the Loran, but it seems
I never get around to sticking it in the panel!
The Bonanza has old, but serviceable, equipment that will allow me to execute any
approach that is available in the US except those which require special authorization
(Cat II, VNAV and such) and the Microwave Landing System.
Most of the time I could get along just fine with what is in the Pacer, but I can rationalize
the need to have the rest of the stuff quite easily!
If I had an A35 or even a straight 35, I think it would have about the same equipment
as the V35B.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010119 074953 msg01206.tex]

328
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Avionics Advice - Garmin Verses UPSAT

Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:14:26

In a message dated 10/30/00 3:35:10 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

FWIW, the installation costs of a GNS 430/530 is about half of an equiva-

lent UPSAT stack. Also the UPSAT requires a grey code converter, while
the Garmin does it directly.
This is according to my radio shop (Skyline Radio at Troutdale, OR)
Frank Stutzman Bonanza N494B Hood River, OR

Good Afternoon Frank,

My favorite radio shop also touts the Garmin over the UPS stuff. But I do think that
anyone who is seriously in that market should read the essay written by someone at
Chief Aircraft.
It can be found at: http://www.chiefaircraft.com/Avionics/MfgAI/ApolloComparison.html
IF I were in that market, and I am not, the MX20 would be at the top of my list. The
unit is only eight inches deep and I do believe it could be mounted in the center panel
with just a small modification of the glare shield. I just don’t like the idea of a moving
map all of the way over in the ubiquitous Beech canted radio stack.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001030 171426 msg15500.tex]

329
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Avionics Advice - Highly Integrated or Not?

Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:36:26

In a message dated 2/1/01 8:52:37 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob, what are your thoughts about having all the things in one box as
in the Garmin 430 or 530. Could one failure take out the GPS, Vor and
Comm? Seems like separate units would be better. Jack Taylor

Good Evening Jack,

That has worried me as well, though techies have told me some thought has been given
to that concern by Garmin. It would seem there must at least be a common power
source.
The big thing the 430 has going for it is price. You get a lot for the dollar with all of
the stuff they have in one box. They include the annunciators and the encoder serializer
making the install simpler and cheaper. Somehow, they have convinced the FEDs that
the annunciators way over on the right hand side in the Beech radio stack are adequately
within the pilot’s primary vision.
My leaning is toward an MX-20 for my next big expenditure, but no decision as yet.
The GX-60 and SlimLine 30 look good when used with the MX-20
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010201 223626 msg02500.tex]

330
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Avionics Advice and HSI Desirability

Fri, 28 Apr 2000 12:25:03

In a message dated 4/28/00 10:08:04 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Would you not want an HSI as long as we have VOR’s, regardless of the
sophisitication of one’s GPS and other display avionics?

Good Morning John, (And Bob Stephens too!)

For me, it is always a balance between money, panel space and what it takes to get the
job done.
The HSI is, for me, a ”nice to have” instrument. I can fly no lower approaches or go
anywhere with it that I cannot go without it. The principal advantage is that it frees
up one panel hole. It also makes for an easier instrument scan. It certainly helps with
situational awareness, but that can be had for a whole lot less money with any number
of very good handheld GPS units. If money were no object, the weight and space were
of no concern, I would probably have one installed.
If I were looking for someplace to spend money on Bob’s airplane, I would first ask
if he has tip tanks. For even routine cross-country style IFR, the extra fuel can be
comforting and when the weather has really turned out much worse than forecast, it is
always comforting to have lots of fuel on board. When I am executing an approach to
minima, I don’t want to be under any pressure that says I have to get in. It’s awfully
nice to be able to arrive somewhere with enough fuel on board to name a good solid
VFR alternate and to have enough fuel to be able to stay around the desired destination
for an hour or two without having to sweat it.
If I really wanted to add some electronic toys, I would be likely to add a low cost simple
resolverless approach approved GPS. However, I think I would get more operational
capability from the extra fuel.
VORs and ILSs are going to be with us for a long time yet. Should the DME or the ADF
in Bob’s airplane fail, I would look very seriously at replacing them with a GPS. The
acquisition cost of the ADF and DME are about the same as the IFR GPS. The problem
is that the maintenance of a current data card adds considerably to the cost of owning
a GPS. The major recommendation that I would have for any newly minted IFR pilot
is to spend some discretionary income practicing partial panel instrument flying and, as
everyone knows, that means with a turn needle instrument, NOT a turn coordinator!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000428 122503 msg07223.tex]

331
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Bose Headsets
Wed, 28 Oct 1998 18:39:20

Good Evening All,

In a message dated 10/28/98 5:07:13 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

Now, Dr. Bose SHOULD be in the aviation business with what he initially
charges for the sets and subsequent service. Just my opinion, never a cost
to you, anytime!

For what it’s worth, I purchased the Bose headsets when they first came out. They
have never needed service, but I have received several free upgrades for the sets over the
years. I had one power cord failure (Cigar lighter unit) and they sent me another one
immediately, no questions asked and didn’t even want me to send in the old one.
I did spend something to have them upgraded a couple of years ago. It wasn’t cheap,
I think in the order of $90 per headset, but they were working OK before and I really
didn’t notice much change after the mod except I can’t hear the radar stations anymore.
Each year at Oshkosh I ask for and receive a couple of new ear pad sets free. That
means that all four of my headsets have new pads every other year. Don’t know how
long that will last, but I am getting something for the big bucks I paid to have the early
active noise canceling headsets.
So far, I’m happy!
Happy Skies,
BobSiegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981028 183920 msg06399.tex]

332
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Bose Headsets
Mon, 24 Jan 2000 20:05:02

In a message dated 1/24/00 2:15:07 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I’m thinking about acquiring one of the Bose noise cancelling headsets.
How is everyone’s experience with this unit? The one I’m considering
would have a battery pack.
Ed Livermore

Good Evening Ed,

Just to add another datapoint, I have the antique version of the Bose. They are larger
and heavier than the new X version. I have been very pleased with the performance.
Unfortunately, they are not convenient to use in other aircraft due to the special plug
requirements, but with the adapter hard wired, they are great! Our youngest son bought
the new ones after trying my antiques. He likes the performance, but feels that the
batteries are a pain. He plans on adding ships power capability soon.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000124 200502 msg01617.tex]

333
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

CIR-10 ELT Battery

Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:14:28

Hi Greg
In a message dated 97-11-21 05:39:10 EST, you write:

Any suggestions where I might locate one? The unit is a CIR-10. If I have
to pay $110, I’ll be better off just replacing the unit, any recommendations
for replacements if I need to do so?

Try Artex Aircraft Suppies, Inc. - P.O.Box 1270 - Canby, OR 90173 - Phone: (503) 266-
3959 or (800) 547-8901, This is where I have been obtaining my batteries recently. They
make them up and ship when you call and they have an excellent product knowledge.
If anybody can supply one, they can.
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19971121 101428 msg02453.tex]

334
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

DG - Degree Hash Marks

Sat, 12 Feb 2000 09:50:32

In a message dated 2/12/00 1:42:27 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

R.C. Allen has 2 degree pitch markings. jm

George Wolf wrote:
I considered that when I put a new one in several years ago. I finally
decided to get the one with the small hash marks (which is Sigma-Tek if I
remember correctly). The reason was I felt they would make IFR easier to
fine tune. I think it did.

Good Morning All,

Many, many years ago in a land far, far away there was an airline that was changing over
from those nice big stable AN gyros, which read like a proper compass, to those funny
looking little tiny three and an eighth inch ones, which had a funny looking vertical
card, and on which all the numbers moved backwards.
Now there was major dissension in the land and turmoil was rampant. Some felt the
numbers were too small, others liked the smaller scan distance which that allowed.
Almost everyone complained because the thing turned backwards and didn’t look like
a real compass, but there were a few who felt the flat layout might help some of those
new folks gain the ”big picture” (I think the current buzz word for that is something
like ”situational awareness”).
It came to pass that the powers that be decided the new flux gate directed gyros were
going to stay.
Dissension continued though, as the unwashed masses continued the argument as to
whether the new little bugger ought to have a hash mark every five degrees or a major
mark each ten degrees with a minor mark each two degrees.
The argument over which configuration allowed the greatest precision of flight guidance
filled the cockpits and dispatch areas with heated exchanges. Written materials were
distributed and scientific evaluations supporting both positions were rampant.
In order to quell the unrest, the powers that be decided to poll the users and mark the
instruments in the manner chosen by the majority of those who responded to the poll.
There were fifteen hundred persons eligible to vote on this momentous decision.
Sixty-six and two-thirds of those responding voted in favor of the five degree markings.
You guessed it, There were three voters!
Happy Skies,

335
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000212 095032 msg02801.tex]

336
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

DME Desirability
Fri, 2 Mar 2001 10:18:17

In a message dated 3/2/01 8:38:57 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

My partners and I have decided to leave the DME in our Malibu for this
reason even though we are having dual Garmins and an Avidyne installed.
I opted for the clean look in the Baron getting rid of the DME. I doubt I
will miss it much.
Mike

Good Morning Mike,

My feelings exactly. If you already have a good modern light weight DME and there is
no weight or space problem, why not leave it installed? The same goes for an ADF. They
have almost no value on the used market and I still like to listen to the AM stations
occasionally!
For flight outside the US, there are some countries where the DME, ADF or both may
be required by the local authorities.
However, for those aircraft owners who are starting from scratch, it is hard to justify
spending any money for an ADF or a DME if the aircraft will be flown primarily in the
USA.
For many of our group, the cost is not a factor, for others of us, it definitely is!
Even for those who can afford the extra equipment financially, there are considerations
of space, power and weight.
It would be nice if Garmin could address the problems that do occur when trying to get
by with ”only” a single radio such as a 430 or 530.
I think all of us would be interested in hearing of any experiences you have as to how
well you could get by with just one of those radios, and no other, in your panel.
Why don’t you try a VOR DME approach and let us know how it works? Does the
430/530 give you distance information or does it just use the intersections directly?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Thanks and;
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010302 101817 msg05035.tex]

337
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

DME Desirability/GPS Replacement for DME

Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:40:02

In a message dated 2/28/01 12:09:08 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob: Please help me - is this a case for having a ”real” DME in the cockpit?
Steve

Good Afternoon Steve,

Put it this way. I wouldn’t go out and buy a DME today.
BUT! If you have a fairly modern light weight one already installed and can afford the
weight and space, why not leave it in?
On the other hand, if you have one of those eighteen pound NARCO antiques, I would
get rid of it just as soon as I could afford an IFR approved GPS.
The IFR GPS can be used in lieu of the DME for all distance functions in the US
National Airspace System. There really is little or no need for a DME if you have an
IFR approved GPS
Since many of us are still getting along with only one IFR approved GPS, there are
times when it is being used in lieu of a DME that you might also want to use it for some
other purpose.
I find that I can generally use a little forethought and planning and still get everything
out of the GPS that I want.
The decision by Garmin, King (General Electric) and UPSAT to place the location of
the localizer associated DME transceiver sites in their database makes it even more
convenient to eliminate the DME than it was before.
I wish I could get the folks at Trimble to do it as well. So far, they have refused to do
so. I don’t know what is happening to the Northstar. Any Northstar folks that would
care to comment?
The distance derived form the GPS can still be used even though the DME site is not in
your database. The method is listed in recent editions of the AIM. It takes some math,
but it is legal. AOPA has a website explaining it as well.
Check it out at:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/1999/991213gps.html
If you have a Garmin, King/GE or UPSAT, the procedure is no longer required, but it
is still available to the rest of us!
Any help?

338
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010228 134002 msg04834.tex]

339
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

DME Hold Switch/Dual GS

Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:28:39

In a message dated 7/20/00 1:31:23 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Question 1–I have a DME switch that has a ”Hold” position between the
”Nav1” & ”Nav2” switch positions. What does it do and how do I use it?
Question 2–I have 2 Collins CDI’s with both having glideslope needles.
Both are electrically tied together to 1 glideslope receiver on the Nav 1
radio. Was there a reason why Beech wired it this way?

Good Afternoon Ed,

The first one is easy, If you want to leave the DME on some station other than the one
you need to navigate with, just select it in the normal manner on one or the other as
appropriate. Then, switch the selector to hold. The DME receiver will remain selected
to the last one that was channeled. If you then switch the selector to one or the other
of the Nav sets, the DME will be channeled to match that frequency.
A common time when this is required is at the locations where a nearby VOR DME is
used as the distance measurement for an ILS. You first select the VOR with the DME
switch set to the same unit on which you are selecting the VOR. Once the DME is
selected and identified, you switch the DME selector to HOLD, then tune the Nav unit
to the ILS. All that the Nav 1, Nav 2 or Hold switch does is determine where the DME
picks up the ground for it’s tuner. Nav 1 and Nav 2 go to the respective sets. The Hold
position is just open so that the set will not channel.
For the second I have no idea what was in the minds of the Beech folks unless they
just figured it would be available in the event of failure of the number one instrument.
Sounds like quite a stretch to me. I really like having full dual glideslopes, indicator and
receiver. We fly them so close to the ground it is nice to have the cross check.
Happy Skies,
Old bob
[ARTICLES/20000720 162839 msg11162.tex]

340
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Fluxgate Valve Mounting

Thu, 4 Jun 1998 17:40:26

Good Evening All,

My fluxgate valve is mounted in the left wing. It had been in the wingtip but when
the wing tip tanks were installed, the end tip rib was cut open to allow the unit to be
installed on the bottom skin and then the rib was repaired (with very lousy workmanship
I might add) thus making the unit non servicable. There was no way to adjust it and
no way to get it out without unriveting the crummy repair and bending the rib again.
I did disassemble the repair, take out the fluxgate and make a proper repair of the rib.
After that I made a flush patch type of plate to fit in the bottom wing skin on which
I mounted the sender. I used no steel fittings or screws. Everything is either brass or
aluminum including some homemade nut plates. It has been working fine for the last
eight years and is very easy to adjust should the need arise. All that has to be done
is to take out eight brass screws and drop the unit down about six inches where the
adjustment can be made. I followed the directions given by Allied Signal as to mapping
the area with a small compass and there was some interference from some of the wingtip
wiring. I relocated that wiring to the leading edge instead of the factory position and
the area became quite magnetically clear. I suppose it could be considered a minor
alteration but I did list it on a 337 along with the repair I made to the tip rib.
Mine is located six inches inboard of the left tip rib and four inches forward of the rear
spar.
I have seen some installations where there has been an access hole cut in the top of the
wing and the unit installed on the bottom skin directly below the cutout. I suppose
that would be a little easier to adjust but I didn’t want to make the patch in the upper
surface.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980604 174026 msg02983.tex]

341
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Ground Station License

Thu, 25 Jun 1998 13:17:15

Good Afternoon John,

In a message dated 98-06-25 12:46:43 EDT, you write:

I know you have an FCC licence for that ground station, do you not?? Be
careful out there!

Believe it or not I do! Cost me $117 for a ten year license. That is one reason I sent the
set to Narco. They had to certify that the tolerance was within the requirements for a
ground station which are different than for the airborne use.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980625 131715 msg03357.tex]

342
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

King KT-76C Transponder

Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:14:46

In a message dated 7/13/00 2:16:48 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

It’s a nice step up, but not that big of a deal. I definitely wouldn’t trade
in a working 76A plus $1200 for one. But, my 76A was dead and they had
the 76C in stock, and it was a direct plug-in, so I did it.

Good Evening All,

I looked at the 76C when it first came out and decided not to buy it on the recommen-
dation of my electronics guru.
It is his opinion that the unit is not as well built as the earlier King equipment. I
was told that they have had a lot of service and warranty repairs on the C. In fact, it
was his recommendation that if my current unit should fail in a manner that made it
uneconomical to repair, I would be better off with a used 76A.
I was told that the 76C is not the only King equipment that has low quality. The same
is true of the newer KX-155s. It seems the older ones of five or six years ago are great,
whereas the latest are a piece of junk.
For What It’s Worth!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000713 211446 msg10902.tex]

343
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

LORAN as Backup Navigation System

Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:30:06

Good Morning Al (ADM)

In a message dated 98-01-26 11:17:57 EST, you write:

Sure is interesting! Also interesting was AVWEB’s report indicating that

LORAN will probably not go away, based on gov’t agency recommenda-
tions. I’ve a relative that’s pretty high up and active with DoD and he
doesn’t see Loran going away either. Maybe its time to grab one real cheap
to use for a few years.

Could be! My problem with the Loran is that there are NO approved Loran approaches
available to us. I understand that to get them approved would take a modification to
the transmitting site and either different receivers or at least modified ones.
The only use currently approved is for enroute. I know also that my old IFR enroute
approved Loran (1992 vintage), even though well installed with my airplane properly
bonded and grounded, always lost signal in heavy precipitation.
I do not feel Loran is the proper back up. I would be much more inclined to feel
comfortable with a base of widely spread VORs for backup enroute and some high
precision ILSs at strategically located sites.
The current TSO C-129 GPS sets are approved for non-precision approaches at many
more fields than any other type of approach.
The ”enroute only” TSO C-129 sets are not much more expensive than the hand helds.
Chances are they are cheaper than it would be to have a Loran updated to approach
configuration even if that should occur.
I think the Loran should be allowed to die! It was great when there was nothing better,
but there is a cheaper and better alternative available today.
I personally have confidence that our techies will solve the problems that GPS has. I
do, however, feel that officialdom may have some problem in getting everything and
everybody on the same track for some time to come. Consequently some sort of backup
for IFR flight seems reasonable at least until the vast majority of people decide to
embrace the system.
Until the majority of us go ahead and start using the system, the problems inherent
therein will not be obvious. No amount of testing and field trials will duplicate the use
the equipment will receive at the hands of we everyday users.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19980126 133006 msg00528.tex]

344
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

LORAN as Backup Navigation System

Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:09:39

Good Morning All,

A few days ago, AOPA issued a press release concerning the retention of Loran. A
portion is repeated below along with some of my comments.
What say all of you?

FREDERICK, MD - High-ranking managers from FAA, the U.S. Coast

Guard and the Department of Transportation have decided the Loran-C
navigation system should continue operation beyond the year 2000, sup-
porting a long-standing AOPA position.

I know this brings cheer to the hearts of many, but I wonder if it isn’t a harbinger of
potentially very bad news for general aviation pilots.
Maintaining the current Loran system for a few years till the public gains more confidence
in, and becomes adequately equipped with some form of space based navigation does
little harm. I still think that money could be better spent elsewhere, but such is life.
The major problem concerns Eurofix.
It is my understanding (correct me please if I am wrong) that a major influence in the
decision to retain the Loran system was pressure from the european community to retain
the Loran system while they attempt to develop the Eurofix Loran/GNSS.
If the Loran system were to be shut down on it’s original schedule, the Eurofix would
be a dead deal.
Eurofix will provide the integrity and differential signal for the type of navigation that
it is hoped WAAS and LAAS will provide.
So what is wrong with that?
The current Loran processors will not provide that capability. A minimum of a new
processor will be needed along with a much more sophisticated antenna system, the
so-called ”H” antenna. It is much larger and more expensive than the current Loran
antenna. In addition, much more extensive shielding and bonding of our aircraft would
be required along with mandatory addition of a plethora of clothes grabbing and skin
ripping static wicks.
As of this time, the proponents and potential manufacturers of this system have not
been able to make it work to the level necessary for the proposed use. They hope to be
able to solve the problems in the future!
It appears to me that this another of the French inspired digs at the Colonies. It makes
as much sense for general aviation as did the METAR.

345
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

If Eurofix becomes the integrity and differential provider for GPS or another space based
navigation system, it will be required for any IFR flight and will at least double the cost
of operating in the IFR system.
WAAS and LAAS may or may not be the answer, but they are at least capable of much
lower cost, lighter weight and less obtrusive addition to the aircraft. Space based ultra
high frequency is the way to go. Low frequency is antique and should be dumped!
AOPA was hoodwinked on this one.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980721 090939 msg03796.tex]

346
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Laser Gyros
Sun, 30 Jan 2000 13:52:07

In a message dated 1/30/00 11:59:42 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Old Bob, what exactly are the laser gyros? Do they have a place in GA at
some point? Do you see a day when all the instrumentation will be glass
feed by electronics ... no mechanical instruments? If so, are you planning
to move in that direction?
Thanks.

I think my answer to all of those questions except the first would be absolutely!
They are light, simple and reliable. There have been some that have been touted as being
in the one thousand dollar range at current production rates. With high production
they should drop in price at the rate computers have dropped. Andrew Corporation
was developing one, but they sold it off a year or so. I asked a friend about it and he
said the company they sold it to was still working on it, but there was nothing to report.
Hopefully some of our more technically knowledgeable participants will chime in with
corrections on my feeble layman’s description, but here goes!
The laser gyro works by sending a laser signal/light around a circle or triangle of mirrors
and back on to itself. If the ring remains stationary, when the light is back along the
original signal, it will still be in phase, but if the ring has been rotated, the signal will
be out of phase by an amount that is relative to how far the ring has been rotated.
With the two signals beat against each other the resultant frequency can be measure
and related to rate of turn. You use one in each plane and all of the axis are covered.
This stuff is passing through the ring at the sped of light and the rings sometimes have
a total length of six inches or less. How they can measure such things equates to the
same magic they use to figure a position via satellites!
Simple and elegant! I don’t know if anyone is using the mirror system anymore. They
may all have gone to fiberoptic rings. Anybody know?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000130 135207 msg02080.tex]

347
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Laser Gyros
Mon, 31 Jan 2000 14:29:40

In a message dated 1/31/00 12:35:29 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

What makes the rings rotate? What axis do they rotate around? Are they
floating loose? jm

Good Afternoon John,

Hopefully Jeremy will answer the magic questions, but I will try to get started on a
clarification.
The ring laser gyros are mounted to the aircraft, generally all in one box in the electronic
equipment bay. The rings don’t move in relation to the aircraft at all. Only the Laser
light is in motion and it just goes around that ring, then back out to be evaluated. One
”gyro,” or ring, is in a plane perpendicular to the yaw axis, one perpendicular to the
plane of the roll axis and one perpendicular to the plane of the pitch axis. When the
aircraft is yawed, or whatever, the length of time it takes for the light to get around the
circle or ”ring” is affected. I believe that on the early ones that used mirrors, the light
was split by a prism and one half went one way and the other half went the other way
around. When they got back together again, an analysis of the relationship of one half
signal to the other half signal would be made. If they were both the same, no motion
about that axis occurred. If there was a change it would be relative to the direction and
speed of that rotation. All measured with Magic of course!
I understand that all of the newer units use a fiber optic wave guide and not mirrors.
The basic principle should be the same though. The thing ends up with no moving parts
and nothing to wear out!
I have seen a picture of one made for an automotive use that was the size of a baseball!
Hardball no less!
There was a Japanese company that proposed using them for an INS style unit for
automobiles. It was expected to sell for around a thousand bucks retail about ten or
twelve years ago. The advent of GPS has pretty much killed the idea for the mass auto
market, but there are still some low cost applications being investigated. If they ever
find a mass market use, I am sure someone will adapt it for GA use.
There are some in the industry that are pressing for a requirement that some sort of
Inertial Reference Unit be required before GPS can be used for primary and not just
supplemental navigation. If that happens, and I hope it doesn’t, there will have to be a
low cost unit developed or we won’t be flying IFR!
The IRU on the new airliners provides the data for all sorts of things besides the flight
instruments. On the 767 it provides data to an indicator that tells the captain how fast
the nose gear is traveling when on the ground. It determines how hard the brakes are

348
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

applied during automatic braking events, it navigates the airplane around the world for
those unfortunate souls who aren’t equipped with GPS and I am sure dozens of other
things which I have forgotten or never knew.
Did I confuse things even more?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000131 142940 msg02163.tex]

349
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Laser Gyros
Mon, 31 Jan 2000 18:15:56

In a message dated 1/31/00 4:31:32 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Old Bob/Jeremy: This is an intriguing piece of technology. Sounds as if it

would need some high precision manufacturing techniques. No wonder it’s
expensive. Thanks for the information. jm

Good Afternoon John,

I wonder just how difficult that high precision manufacturing process really has to be?
I remember when Bell Labs first came out with transistors. They were a lot more
expensive than tubes, but the products that could be built using them were so small
and useful that industry went ahead and used those expensive oddities anyway.
Look where the world has gone since then!
If someone can just think of a use for the ring laser gyro that would make them one-
millionth as ubiquitous as the transistor they would likely cost less than a buck or two
in no time flat!
The one thing my old age has done for me is give me great faith in what industry can
do if the need is great enough.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000131 181556 msg02176.tex]

350
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Marker Beacon Operation

Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:44:29

In a message dated 1/17/01 8:13:08 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

HELP! I’m a little confused and would like for someone who understands
this to please clarify it. I would think the OM, MM, and IM transmitters
would be on different frequencies in order for the MB receiver to distin-
guish which marker you are flying over. If this is true, and 75MHz is the
frequency for the OM transmitter, what is the frequency for the MM and
IM transmitters? If you adjust the tuning slug in the antenna to peak on a
75MHz signal (for the OM), how does this affect the receiver’s sensitivity
for the MM and IM signals?

Good Morning Roger,

I hope that Ron Koyich or one of the other more electronically knowledgeable folks will
give a better answer, but my feeble attempt follows.
The Marker Beacon is a 75 Mhz receiver. The carrier is modulated at what is basically
an audio frequency that is different for the OM, MM and IM.
Different tones are recognized by a series of filters which then light the appropriate light.
Incidentally, the ILS localizer is also a ”tone” differentiated signal. There are two ”audio”
signals transmitted. One is at 90 hertz and the other at 150. (These figures could be
thousands of Hertz off as I am not much of an electronics techie, but the principle still
applies.)
The signals are transmitted over a set of very highly directional antennas located such
that one is on each side of the approach path.
The receiver has appropriate filters to send one transmission to the ”Blue” side and the
other to the ”Yellow” side of the Course Deviation Indicator.
The localizer needle is an indication of the relative strength of the two signals.
The needle shows which signal is received the strongest. When the strength of both
signals is equal, the needle is in the middle.
Basically, it works just like the old Four Course Radio Range, except that the electronics
do the listening and evaluate the signal strength of each transmission instead of the pilot
doing it by ear.
The system that Jimmy Doolittle used was a set of reeds which would vibrate at different
”audio” frequencies. When both reeds were vibrating equally, he was on course.
There really is little that is new!

351
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010117 094429 msg01071.tex]

352
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Northstar CT1000
Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:59:05

In a message dated 2/22/00 6:09:44 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Anyone have any experience with the new Northstar CT-1000 (link be-
low), or know anything about it? It looks interesting, but probably expen-
sive. I’m trying to decide whether to try to link my IFR approach-certified
Northstar M3 to something like the CT-1000, or to get a 430/530 or even
a stand-alone Garmin GPS 295 for redundancy and back-up.

Good Evening Joey and All,

I have been watching in the hope that someone might have actual ”hands on” experience
with this unit.
I have hope that it, or something similar, will become available which would make it
practical to utilize the JeppView CD for charts instead of the paper ones.
I looked at the unit at Sun n’ Fun last year, but was disappointed in the size. The Jepp
charts end up about half their normal size and that is tough for my old eyes. When I
am doing training or taking my IFR proficiency checks, I normally print my approach
plates from the JeppView CD so that I can get oversize plates. It sure is a lot easier to
read. I hate to go to anything smaller. The price is a little steep for me as well.
I haven’t evaluated the use of the unit for any other purpose though.
While I am discussing the JeppView disc, I find that it takes a lot longer for me to call
up and print an approach plate than it does to get it out of the book, but I sure would
like to be able to quit doing the revisions. I might miss checking all of the changes, but
the savings in time would be great. Anybody gone to the disc in lieu of paper?
I also wonder where I would put the thing. My Garmin GPSMAP 295 still takes up
about all the space I can spare and I think that screen is too small to be of much real
use. It is fun to play with, but hardly a necessity.
I too would like to hear what others think about the CT1000.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000222 215905 msg03377.tex]

353
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Panel Configuration and Clock

Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:28:28

In a message dated 11/11/99 2:08:12 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Finally, Astrotech and Davtron both offer wheel mount chronometers, and
panel mount as well. Is either a better choice than the other? Let me know
what works, and what doesn’t work, for you.

Good Afternoon Bob,

I would lean toward installing the clock in the control wheel. There is so little real estate
on the panel, it seems a shame to waste it on a clock!
I also think that timing approaches is a rapidly disappearing requirement. All of the
new RNAV style of approaches are being drawn without the need for any timing at all.
This will sound a little facetious, but if the approach plates are getting hard to read,
you might consider using the JeppView system. You then print those plates you want
and they are almost twice as big as the normal plates. Much easier to read.
I note that you still have the VOR heads mounted below the floating panel as the factory
originally mounts them. I have always moved mine up to the floating panel and find
that arrangement much more to my liking.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991111 162828 msg10493.tex]

354
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Panel Construction
Sun, 7 May 2000 16:56:57

In a message dated 5/7/00 1:34:26 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Is it OK to relocate a gyro instrument to a panel that doesn’t have shock

mounts?
Will the life of the instrument be affected?
Thanks.

Good Afternoon Howard,

No problem at all. Many aircraft have the gyros mounted in a non shock mounted panel.
I think I mentioned this before, but here goes any how!
Eastern airlines ran a test when they were flying the Martin 404. They found that,
on the 404, instruments mounted on a panel that was not shock mounted had a longer
service life than the same instruments mounted on the same panel with shock mounts.
Go figure!!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/20000507 165657 msg07770.tex]

355
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Panel Construction
Mon, 8 May 2000 00:32:06

In a message dated 5/7/00 11:20:05 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Say Bob, What airline did you fly for? Eastern? Did you know Howard
Weant from Atlanta?

Good Evening Will,

No, I flew for United Air Lines from 1951 to 1989. The story about the experience
Eastern had with the shock mount panels in the Martin 404 was interesting enough that
it was published in Aviation Week or something similar.
It seems that the pilots had complained that the instruments were hard to read in
turbulence. They decided to try them solidly mounted. Not only were the instruments
easier to read, but they lasted a lot longer so the whole Martin fleet was changed to
solid mount.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000508 003206 msg07801.tex]

356
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Panel Construction
Sun, 24 Dec 2000 17:29:00

In a message dated 12/24/00 4:05:15 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Have you ever seen a rigidly mounted flat panel installed in place of the
formed floating panel? Eliminating the floating mounts at the bottom
would also give more room for the two rows of 3-1/8” instruments.

Good Afternoon Rodger,

Yes, I have.
I think the shock mounts are another thing whose time has passed. If I were doing a new
panel today, I would make it rigid and flat. You might even be able to accommodate
three rows of four instruments each!
I would incorporate removable sections though. I like to be able to take a relatively
small section out for maintenance purposes.
I have the floating panel in my current airplane setup so that floating panel with all
components intact can be removed in about five minutes and reinstalled in about ten.
The pneumatic system has ”B” nuts, the pitot and static is attached with Poly Flo
threaded couplings and is arranged so that only one line of each has to be removed to
remove the assembly. There is a sixty pin ”Cannon” plug for general electrical power
and the usual connectors for the VOR, HSI and such.
It requires that I disconnect the 60 pin plug and thirteen other quick disconnect plugs
and fittings to remove the panel.
Works like a charm and gives excellent access to the area between the firewall and the
instrument panel.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001224 172900 msg18292.tex]

357
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Panel Construction
Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:19:12

In a message dated 2/28/01 1:15:37 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

I think that’s the closest to my ideal panel I’ve ever seen. Too bad I can’t
afford it. :-)
What do the rest of you think about replacing the floating and center panels
with a single, flat piece?
...doug

Good Afternoon doug,

I like the idea of making new panels, but I would still have divisions to make it easier to
take out in sections. I currently have my floating panel setup so that it can be removed,
with everything still installed, in less than five minutes. It takes about ten minutes to
put it back in.
That setup makes for much easier access to the space between the panel and the firewall.
I also wired up my radio stack with a cord long enough that the entire stack can be taken
out and set on the wing with all of the antennas and leads still connected. Between that
and the removable primary panel, maintenance is a snap.
I would strongly suggest that any new panels be made with such a capability in mind.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010228 151912 msg04852.tex]

358
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Reliability of Avionic Computers

Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:31:06

In a message dated 2/23/00 9:33:11 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Another issue ... would you trust your approach to a computer? That’s
all it is, a reconfigured laptop. How many times a day do you reboot
Windowns? Give me a paper chart anyday.

Good Afternoon John,

You are posing a lot of questions in the statement above. I trust my approaches to
a computer almost every time I shoot one. The idea is, how reliable is the computer
being used or what is the potential for failure? The GPS approaches are supposed to be
evaluated based on an undetected error of position being possible no more often than
once in every ten million selections or less. That is the number that is used in the
approval evaluation.
As to the reliability of the paper chart, what would you do if it blew out the window? Or
fell to a point out of reach? Are one of those possibilities more or less likely to happen
in one out of ten million operations than an error in the electronics?
If the paper or electronic data is lost, I figure I would do the same thing I would if the
airborne or ground guidance capability was lost. I would go to my alternate!
(There is the possibility of getting the information from another source via radio com-
munications. Whether or not this would be an acceptable procedure is something to be
discussed at a hearing. I know of no one who has gotten in trouble for doing it, but as
always, it depends!)
Now I haven’t seen a product which I would choose to use in lieu of paper charts, but I
still have hope that something will come along.
The FAA has not been building new approaches at the five hundred per year rate that
they had planned and some of the approaches they have drawn replace others that are
canceled. Even so, there are still a lot of new pieces of paper to put in the book every
two weeks.
When I retired eleven years ago, a full US Jeppesen coverage could be carried in four
two inch binders. I currently have twelve two inch binders for the full lower forty-eight
coverage. They are not quite full, but getting close.
I don’t think paper will be practical much longer.
Either the data will have to be transferred directly to the equipment for each approach
or we will have to find a way of displaying it reliably enough to utilize it for normal
operations.
My current thoughts are leaning toward using the JeppView (or something similar) with

359
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

the onboard capability of reading and printing the charts.

I am a basic computer illiterate and have to rely on you computer wise folks on this
forum to locate and evaluate the right equipment for providing that capability.
One thing I already know is that just calling the pages up on the JeppView takes a lot
longer than it does to flip through the pages of a binder to find the appropriate plate.
There is a long way to go!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000223 143106 msg03434.tex]

360
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Required Equipment
Sun, 9 Aug 1998 17:54:35

Good Afternoon All,

With all of the talk concerning the price of access to the system I thought perhaps I
might try to clarify my thoughts somewhat.
I am encouraging all of you who can afford to and/or have the need for a GPS to go
ahead and purchase the one of your choice. The current crop are all very nice and have
tremnedous potential, BUT does every one NEED one?
If you are going to fly IFR in the National Airspace System, you are required by regu-
lation to have radio gear pertinent to the area in which you intend to operate.
That has been interpreted to mean that you must have a VOR. No DME, no ILS,
no ADF, no marker beacon. Not even a Transponder is required! Just a VOR and
communications capability pertinent to the route.
Adding a Transponder will allow operations in almost all of the airspace in the lower 48
states.
There is no requirement that you have two VORs or two comm units.
Would that minimum amount of equipment add much to the operational capability of
our aircraft?
I think just the ability to operate in the IFR system adds a tremendous amount of
capability and flexibility to the GA airplane as a safe and efficient transportation tool.
However just being able to fly VFR is OK too IF you can adjust your schedule and your
temperment to maintain proper safety while flying VFR.
Your destination airport does not have to have an IFR approach in order for you to file
IFR. If it does have an IFR approach, you do not have to have equipment to execute
that approach to file it as a destination.
If there is no approach available or you do not have the equipment necessary to execute
the approach available at your destination, you must file an alternate regardless of the
weather forecast for your arrival.
If you can get to VFR conditions either by flight at the minimum enroute altitudes or
at a minimum vectoring altitude, that is all that is required.
It would seem that good preflight planning for operations with that minimum equipment
should be the selection of an alternate that you would be able to find via DR procedures
and weather at that alternate good enough that you would be able to find it with out
exposing your flight to the potential of controlled flight into terrain.
Adding equipment beyond that minimum should give us greater flexibility in our oper-

361
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

ations, greater reliability or both.

If we do a good job of flight planning so as to stay within the limitations of our equip-
ment, the safety of the operation should not change either positively or negatively with
the addition of more equipment to our aircraft. More equipment just allows more pos-
sibilities.
A very high percentage of IFR rated pilots use that IFR capability primarily for flight
through adverse weather encountered enroute and do not plan on executing approaches
to anything much below VFR local conditions.
For that type of operation, the single VOR, single Comm equipped airplane is more
than adequate. Adding a handheld GPS and a handheld Comm provides a very safe
and usable transportation machine.
If your lifestyle and/or your personality requires you to arrive at a preplanned destination
with a slightly higher degree of reliability, additional funds can be spent to allow the
aircraft to have a higher capability of meeting those schedules. The additional cost can
be almost as high as you want it to be!
My ego drives me to be able to execute an approach to an airport any time there is an
approach there to be executed and I have therefore tried to keep my airplane equipped
for most any eventuality. That has required the expenditure of a considerable percentage
of my disposable income. I would like to have CAT II and CAT III capability but that
is beyond my financial resources so I have had to pass.
Were the expenditures worth it? Probably not, I rarely have to be anyplace at any set
time. I guess I still like the idea of making ”schedule with safety”.
So what is the point I am trying to make?
Analyze your own operation and purchase equipment as appropriate to your lifestyle
and your individual satisfaction.
You can gain a tremendous amount of operational flexibility for some very small expen-
ditures.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980809 175435 msg04159.tex]

362
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Sandel HSI
Tue, 23 Mar 1999 12:30:49

In a message dated 3/23/99 11:09:11 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

If I didn’t already have it installed, I would not get one. I would put the $
toward a slaved HSI.

Good Morning Mike,

If you are seriously thinking of an HSI, don’t fail to look at the Sandel. AVweb gave it
rave reviews. By the time you bought the full KCS-55 system the price would be in a
range where the Sandel would be competitive.
It evidently can serve as the annunciator and control device for whatever IFR GPS you
choose and will give RMI functions for an ADF, VOR or other antique equipment that
might be in your airplane. I don’t have any idea how good the moving map function is,
but I plan on looking at it when we are at Sun ’n Fun.
If it weren’t for the extensive rewiring necessary for the installation, the price would be
quite competitive.
Were I starting a modern panel from scratch, it would definitely be on my list of things
to consider and I am an old retired guy on a limited income. That means I’m CHEAP.
Happy Skies,
Skinflint Bob
[ARTICLES/19990323 123049 msg03200.tex]

363
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Sandel HSI
Sat, 29 Jan 2000 23:56:17

In a message dated 1/29/00 6:34:44 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Do you know what the new Sandel electronic HSI uses? I assume this is
what everyone is referring to when they describe an ”electronic HSI”. An
external gyro? Or a built in electric or vacuum gyro?

The Sandel has the capability of using most of the gyros that are currently available in
the market place. I know of a couple that are fed by a KG102A, the same unit used in
the KCS-55 system. I have been told that there is a Century unit which will work as
well. I would imagine that various Collins and Honeywell stuff would work as well. I
don’t believe Sandel currently has a device of their own available to provide the required
stabilization.
The KCS 55A that I have is an all electric system.
The Sandel is just a unit that provides a place to display all of the information which it
derives from other sources. A neat unit, but one that contains no sensors of it’s own.
Most of the current aircarrier aircraft have no gyros of any kind in the instrument panel.
(except maybe for the standby horizon)! Somewhere in the belly or elsewhere there is a
unit generally called a Three Axis Data Generator. That provides all of the data which
is presented on the glass or mechanical instruments on the panel. Some of the TADGs
have mechanical gyros and others use various forms of Laser gyros. Either with mirrors
or light guide devices for the Laser
The Sandel is a step in that direction for we GA types.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000129 235617 msg02045.tex]

364
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Sandel HSI
Mon, 1 May 2000 11:29:02

In a message dated 5/1/00 9:31:48 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob: Thanks for your valuable info. Saving a hole in the panel is good,
also the stability of the direction information is good. I wonder if the
Sandel electronic HSI does the knob turning automatically or not (afterall
it is a computer controlled device). The auto-slewing is supposed to do
something like the GPSS device, only ”better” - I am not sure what that
means. Anyone know? Steve

Good Morning Steve,

This is mainly supposition on my part, but I rather doubt the Sandel does any compu-
tation or modification of the signal.
It is my understanding that the Sandel is primarily a presentation device which takes the
data from several sources and presents it in a very small space. It does have the capability
of combining an ADF, VOR or GPS bearing with a signal from a compass source so as
to derive an RMI style indication on the HSI. The GPSS takes additional data beyond
the raw displacement information and uses it to smooth the process for the autopilot to
follow the course. In order for the GPSS to do it’s thing, a string of information called
the ARINC 429 label 121 Bank Command and Label 312 Groundspeed data must be
provided by the navigation source. Without that data, all any device can do is provide
an algorithm, based on past experience, in an effort to smooth out the intercept and
tracking capabilities. That is what all autopilot manufacturers have always tried to do.
The 429 stream has been used in the past by sophisticated air carrier style autopilots.
The use of a GPS navigator has provided the opportunity for S-Tec to build a device to
provide that capability for we light plane types. It probably works better than the stuff
we used in the high priced arena.
I have reasonable confidence that the Sandel allows us to have an HSI presentation
without the necessity to twist the knob while following a GPS signal. If you have no
HSI and have a resolverless GPS, there is no need to twist the knob either!
Buying the Sandel is rather like buying a KI-525 indicator. It is of no use without the
compass, ADF, VOR and all the rest to provide the data for it to present.
Any help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000501 112902 msg07406.tex]

365
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Sandel HSI - Bulb Failure

Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:58:22

Good Afternoon Howard,

In a message dated 3/23/99 3:10:44 PM Central Standard Time, you wrote:

My only concern with the Sandel is that you’re SOL if the bulb burns
out, sort of like the bulb burning out in your projector in the middle of a
presentation.

I guess it depends on how many other things you take out when the Sandel is installed
and how you conduct your flight.
On my airplane, I would still have the heading information on my KR-87 ADF indicator
which is slaved to the flux valve. The GPS would be giving me the track made good. The
VOR, ADF and GPS all would have their own presentations. The annunciator functions
would also be merely repeating information available in another form elsewhere on the
panel. Even the autopilot and coupled approach functions would still be available. My
second VHF NAV set has both the localizer and a glide slope so they could be used to
monitor a coupled ILS in the normal manner. I don’t have a moving map right now
anyway, so? Doesn’t seem like it should be anymore than a distraction!
On the other hand, why would one need the instrument in the first place!
I guess it is just one of those nice to have things that are mainly an aid in our situational
awareness quotient.
Sandel says the bulb has a 400 hour life and they suggest replacing it every 200 hours.
I think that if I had one, I would replace it on an as needed basis. Just like the landing
light.
For most of us, it would be pretty rare that the loss of the instrument would be anymore
than an inconvenience.

I wonder if you can replace the bulb in flight.

I don’t think most of us could. The unit must be removed from the panel to do so. If
the cables behind the panel were long enough so that they could be pulled through and
were not secured in a manner that would preclude that being done, I suppose it would
be possible, but why bother?

That said, it looks like a *neat* unit. Between that and the Garmen
GN430(?), fasten your seat belts...

Right now the Garmin 430 is the hottest selling piece of electronics in the industry.
Many dual installations are being done with all of the old electronics being replaced by
the two Garmin units.
Allied Signal stuff should be dropping precipitously on the used market. Anyone noted

366
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

the effect yet?

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990323 165822 msg03226.tex]

367
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Static Wicks and Ruddervator Balance

Tue, 29 Dec 1998 12:20:50

In a message dated 12/29/98 1:02:52 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

The reason for this rebalancing is that I just replaced both of the old
magnesium torque fittings with the aluminum ones (also heavier) and added
static wicks.
So, all this added weight and Kyle’s mention of weight parameters has me
thinking I might have OBESE Ruddervators. Any thoughts or comments
would be appreciated.
Terry

Good Morning Terry,

I think you are on the right track with your balancing and whether or not your rudder-
vators are obese is an excellent question. Unfortunately it appears that very little data
has been accumulated as to total weights and I agree that we should start acquiring that
data.
At the present time, no one really knows what has been causing the problem and research
is needed.
Meanwhile, I was wondering, why do you want the static wicks?
It is my feeling that static wicks don’t do diddly as far as protecting the aircraft from a
static discharge. The only other reason I know of to apply static wicks is to reduce the
effect of static build up on HF communication and low frequency navigation systems
such as Omega, LF and Loran. The only one of those still around is Loran and GPS is
vastly superior to Loran and has no problem with static buildup on the airframe.
I would suggest removing the static wicks from the ruddervators.
If you still want static protection for the tail, check that the bonding straps from the
stabilators to the ruddervators are in good shape. If you have a metal tail stinger, put
the static wicks on that. If you still have one of the old fiberglass tailcones, run some
aluminum strips inside it from the screw holes in the front toward the rear (on the inside)
and install static wicks to them.
I personally don’t think they are worth the trouble and have never had them on Bonanzas
I have owned in the last 45 years.
I have flown other airplanes, Bonanzas and others, that were static wick equipped and,
with the exception of better HF and Loran performance, have never seen the need.
For whatever a free opinion is worth, there it is!

368
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981229 122050 msg07928.tex]

369
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

T&B Verses Turn Coordinator

Sat, 4 Dec 1999 13:17:26

In a message dated 12/4/99 11:15:20 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

A very interesting explanation. Under what circumstances IMC could this

happen and be a serious problem?
Thanks.
-jts Arlington, TX Beech P35 (N519BD)

Good Morning John,

That explanation was not given to explain any specific action that might occur during
IMC, but rather to demonstrate a condition wherein the instrument is not telling the
truth. I am sure I could hypothesis a condition where the lack of definite information
could lead to a problem. I do not, however, consider such explanations pertinent to the
subject.
The point I try to make is that the classic Turn indicator always tells the truth.
The fact that the Turn Coordinator will lie to me leads me to have less confidence in
what it is telling me.
It is very difficult to transfer to partial panel with a failure of the horizon. The pilot
must have strong confidence in the instrument he/she is using to determine that the
horizon has failed.
If the only instrument lost is the horizon, the easiest way to determine that it has failed
is to determine whether or not the airplane is turning!
I have never seen a classic turn indicator fail in any other manner than to just quit and
stay right in the center. If it is wiggling, it’s working! The rate may be off, but it will
be usable to keep the aircraft right side up.
Many others on this site have suggested multiple instrumentation be installed to provide
the confidence required to avoid spatial disorientation.
Regular use of a classic Turn and Bank instrument in normal instrument flight will
provide information as to the rate of turn and helps to smooth out attitude based
instrument flying. While it isn’t necessary to use it in that manner, such use will make
it easier to gain the confidence required to rely on that instrument should the attitude
instrument fail. Should the Turn indicator fail, the pilot would be more likely to note
that failure if it was regularly used!
And it doesn’t look like an attitude gyro!
If the airplane does not turn, it won’t spin in or do other dastardly things that regularly

370
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

cause accidents.
There are many other devices in the airplane that can give an indication as to whether
or not the airplane is turning, but an attitude gyro is not one of them!
Even the dastardly Turn Coordinator will tell us if we are turning or not, given sufficient
time. The trouble is that if we are not in coordinated flight, a wing will be down while
we are going straight and the ”look’s like a horizon” TC will show a ”wings level”
indication. Too confusing for me!
I want to place my confidence in an instrument that will tell me the truth!
I find the GPS track made good to be an excellent heading source as well.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS Several of our friends commented on their desire to have a warning flag to tell
whether the Turn Coordinator or the Turn indicator is working. I think that most of
those instruments which have flag capability merely show that the instrument is receiving
power. I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think the flag will show if the instrument has
incurred a frozen bearing or other internal problem.
[ARTICLES/19991204 131726 msg11556.tex]

371
2.6. AVIONICS-MISC CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

T&B Verses Turn Coordinator

Sat, 4 Dec 1999 20:54:26

In a message dated 12/4/99 6:45:58 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I’ll bet that had more to do with the new display on the TC than it did
the TC’s response to yaw.

Good Evening Bob,

I agree one hundred per cent!
The non-pilot can be told to level the wings by looking at the TC presentation which
mimics the presentation of an artificial horizon.
The trouble with that is that it emphasizes roll control and not directional control. The
pure turn needle shows nothing but yaw. A TC shows the same indication for both
roll and yaw. You can’t tell which is causing the indication without observing other
instrumentation.
Since we regularly use the artificial horizon for both roll and pitch, the possibility exists
that one will mistake the TC instrument for an attitude gyro. No one ever mistakes a
T&B for anything other than what it is!

Wonder why T&Bs were never made with the TC style display?

Why would you want to? The Turn indicator shows yaw or turn, not roll.
The thing that one wants to do to avoid losing the airplane is to fly straight.
If the turn needle is maintained in the middle, by whatever means, the airplane will
remain in a safe flight regime. A TC style of indication implies that the wing is lowered
or raised as the case may be. That is a roll indication, not a turn indication.
It is my opinion that pilots are not as heading aware as they should be anyway. I suggest
that anything that encourages the thought process to concentrate on heading is better
than anything that encourages thought on wings level. While it is true that an airplane
with the wings level will go straight if there is no adverse yaw force applied, there is
nothing that is more important to maintaining control than knowing where the nose is
going!
It is not difficult to maintain control of the aircraft with a good stable directional gyro,
a GPS track made good or even a magnetic compass flown on a heading of south in the
northern hemisphere.
The Turn needle is a fine and stable indication of whether or not the aircraft is going
straight and it can also be used to make stable turns at precise rates. The TC does that
also but only if the airplane is in unaccelerated coordinated flight. The T&B doesn’t
care whether the flight is accelerated, coordinated or whatever!

372
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.6. AVIONICS-MISC

It is simpler and therefore more reliable than the TC.

Obviously, no one else agrees with my point of view!
Both the TC and the Turn indicator will show yaw. The type of an airplane in which the
indicator is installed is not an important factor unless it is an airplane that is basically
unstable. I don’t know of any modern airplane that cannot be flown adequately with
either a TC or a Turn needle. An extremely unstable airplane will not react well to a
single axis autopilot nor will it be comfortable to fly using just aileron to correct for
a heading displacement. The more unstable the aircraft, the more important it is to
have an instrument that differentiates between yaw and roll. Both the Debbie and the
Bonanza are extremely stable machines and can use all of the production wing levelers
to good advantage. Both airplanes have such high directional stability that they tend to
wiggle in some turbulence conditions. The Debbie has slightly more vertical tail surface
to dampen that wiggle, but is no more or less directionally stable than the Bonanza.
Once again, I know that there are few, if any, who agree with me, but there it is anyway!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991204 205426 msg11610.tex]

373
2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

2.7 AVIONICS-STANDBY

374
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY

Desirability of Redundant Electric and Air Instrumentation

Tue, 25 Jan 2000 15:18:37

In a message dated 1/25/00 1:41:30 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

The real answer is to get rid of mechanical gyros in favor of light based or
differential GPS based gyro equivalents.

Good Afternoon All,

The real question is whether or not you want to go all electric.
While I would very much like to have ring laser gyros or GPS based three axis data
generators available on our GA airplanes, they would be electrically powered and we
would have no pneumatic system at all.
My current airplane has only one instrument driven by air. That is the artificial horizon.
The only reason I have not replaced it with an electric horizon is that there is no practical
electrical replacement for my AH that will power my Century IIB roll unit. Century
provided one originally, but it was so unreliable that they no longer offer it as an option.
I have considered replacing my roll unit with an S-Tec canted gyro based autopilot and
that may yet be the answer.
When I make a decision as to how to handle the roll autopilot capability, I will remove
the pneumatic system entirely.
In any case, that means that an electrical system would have to be provided which is
capable of providing a redundancy at least equal to the redundancy provided by the
current pneumatic devices.
Now, there is no requirement that such redundancy be provided for we part 91 operators,
but it is something which with we have become familiar and most of us would like to
retain that capability.
In days past there have been a large number of airplanes which went all electric.
The Convair 240 was one of the first airliners that did so. A Northeast Airlines Flight
approaching LGA one evening had the experience which the engineers thought could
not happen. The entire electrical system was shorted out.
It also happened to some of the early Aerostars and Turbo Commanders. The result
was that pneumatic systems were installed as backups!
What I would like to see would be for all of us to redirect the resources currently
being put forth trying to provide back up pneumatic sources into solving the nuances of
providing a truly redundant electrical source!
My initial thought is to resurrect my old free standing battery powered T&B to set up

375
2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

on the instrument panel as a backup in case both my alternators and my battery are
lost.
Surely, all of the engineering talent on this forum ought to be able to come up with
something more elegant!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000125 151837 msg01699.tex]

376
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY

Desirability of Redundant Electric and Air Instrumentation

Wed, 26 Jan 2000 13:58:54

In a message dated 1/26/00 10:44:31 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Listening to all the pros & cons of redundant systems it seems to me that
vacuum (Verses pressure, why they do that?) is better than electric for
basic attitude control. If you can maintain a source its pretty fail safe.
Electrical systems on the other hand, can burn, corrode, Highly complex
and prone to wiring errors which show up as failures & smoke.

Good Afternoon Mike,

It appears that you and I are about to agree to disagree!
I can’t wait to get rid of my one and only pneumatic pump, let alone mess up my
airplane with two more!
There are a plethora of choices available to provide flight control guidance and automatic
flight capability via the electrical route. The ones powered by air seem to be on the
antique side. Are there any current auto pilots or wing levelers being manufactured
today that rely on air?
If the airplane is equipped with air powered instruments, it would likely have a maximum
of three. The artificial horizon, directional gyro and maybe a T&B or turn coordinator.
(I guess I should add the air gauge to be totally correct.)
Now, I have experienced a failure of each of those instruments individually at various
times. I have had similar individual failures of electric powered versions as well.
The key is the reliability of the power source. I don’t think the air system is any more
or less reliable than the electrical system. I have had wet air pumps fail, dry air pumps
fail and alternators fail.
I have never experienced a total electrical failure on any airplane. It can and does
happen, but then, wings fall off too.
Good maintenance and following the manufacturers recommendations will reduce the
incidence of air pump failures.
The same is true of the potential for complete electrical failures.
As soon as I make a decision on how to get rid of the horizon driving my autopilot, the
air pump will be history and my airplane will be all electric!
Having two alternators on my current machine, along with good and careful mainte-
nance, should provide pretty good, not perfect, but pretty good redundancy.
The little battery pack powered T&B and my handhelds will be there just in case, but I

377
2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

think the all electric machine will have a lower statistical potential for failure than one
relying on air. On top of that, my engine compartment will be a lot less cluttered and
the weight will be less.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000126 135854 msg01768.tex]

378
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY

Desirability of Redundant Electric and Air Instrumentation

Sat, 29 Apr 2000 09:47:02

Good Morning John,

I wrote the following answer to your question. After I finished, I wondered if it might
be of interest to a few of the others on the Bonanza list. If you feel that it would, would
you mind sending the question that you sent me and this answer to the list?
Thanks,
Old Bob
In a message dated 4/28/00 11:04:13 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

Do you carry that now ... or asked another way, what backup power system
do you use? Actually I recall you have a standby alternator and that would
be good providing you can still the power to the avionics bus after the main
alternator or other component failed.

Good Morning John,

Very kind of you to archive those old thoughts. Some of them still sound good, even to
me!
I haven’t carried the battery pack since the Convair days. I did carry it with me in my
Bonanza in those days, but somewhere I just quit. Don’t know why.
I suppose that I have become complacent. I have had pneumatic pumps fail, both pres-
sure and vacuum, though that has usually been in airplanes which I did not personally
maintain. I have had several alternators fail as well. Along the way I have had a few
cases of instrument failure.
The most difficult to handle were the horizon failures. Even after the failure is deter-
mined, it is very difficult to tell your brain to disregard that information. As soon as
your mind starts to think of something else, your subconscious habits take over and
input a correction to that horizon that has become lazy. I now carry a rubber stick-on
cover to use in the event of a horizon failure. Once it is covered up, I have no problem
maintaining proper attitude via the remaining instrumentation.
I never incurred a failure affecting my instrumentation in as critical a time as did Itzahk.
Who knows what any of us might have done.
I have always noted my pneumatic system and electrical failures long before they became
a problem. That was true before the current warning devices became available. I now
have a nice big red light that will let me know the alternator has failed, but my only
indication of pneumatic failure is the action of the horizon or the indication on the
pressure gauge. I think a Gizmo or similar device would be a good idea.

379
2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

My intention is to go all electric. Eliminate the pressure pump entirely. The big hold
up is my horizon. It provides the information for my primary roll autopilot. The
manufacturer originally had an electric one available, but the failure rate was so high,
they quit making it.
Once I solve that problem, I will eliminate the air!
My standby alternator works great. It is a very simple installation. It is hooked up to
the basic electrical system and is running all of the time. No clutches, relays or anything
else mechanical to fail. Anytime the electrical system voltage falls below 26 volts, the
standby alternator starts to put out power. It will do that if the only problem is that
the primary alternator is overloaded and can’t keep up. A yellow light comes on to warn
me that the standby alternator is in use, but no action is required on my part other than
to monitor the load when I have time. The standby alternator is capable of putting out
30 or 35 amps for a short period of time. If it had a cooling blast tube run to it, that
power could probably be carried for quite a while. However that isn’t necessary. It is a
simple job to reduce the loads to keep them within the output rating of the alternator
without the additional cooling and I don’t want to waste all of that nice cooling air
during normal operations.
I installed a load meter and appropriate switching capability so that I can directly
monitor the electrical system, but Bill Bainbridge has since gotten a device approved
which will flash the yellow light anytime the alternator is putting out more than twenty
amps. The operator can then reduce load until the light stops flashing.
I find that my normal night time running load with everything going, including the pitot
heat, is just at, or a little over, 20 amps. If I turn off either the rotating beacon or the
strobes, the load goes below twenty amps.
If one has the twelve volt system, as do you, load management would be a little more
important, but you still have plenty of time to take care of it before the little alternator
would be in trouble. I can’t imagine how it could be made simpler or more reliable. It
is a vast improvement over the complicated load reduction device that Beech used and
I absolutely don’t want something that has to have a clutch or that takes any action on
my part to become operative.
I don’t think any standby device that takes a pilot action to be put in operation is worth
having. Redundancy is another matter. If I were really enamored with a pneumatic
system as a source of instrument power, I would install dual pumps and set it up just
like a light twin. Both pumps would be operative at all times with a shuttle valve for
isolation. The only trouble is that those shuttle valves have been known to fail when an
engine was shut down.
I think air driven instruments are from the dark ages! I like open cockpits, but I don’t
want one on my Bonanza.
I don’t know how I will handle things if George gets his ignition system approved.
Provided it is priced within my capability, I would like to have it. I don’t know if my
standby alternator system will satisfy the FAA as providing adequate redundancy or

380
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY

not. Obviously, if you lose all electrical while flying with the full electronic ignition, the
engine quits!
Reliability and redundancy of the electrical system becomes a very important factor in
the equation, but we do fly with one engine don’t we?
Decisions, decisions, all the time decisions!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/20000429 094702 msg07293.tex]

381
2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Desirability of Redundant Electric and Air Instrumentation

Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:49:16

Good Afternoon All,

Since there has been a resurgence in interest in standby instrumentation and power
sources, I would like to reiterate what I have done in the past and am now doing to
provide redundancy to my satisfaction.
We each have a different level of risk evaluation. What works for me may well be
anathema to you, but here goes anyway!
On my first three Bonanzas, I carried two T&B instruments. One was powered by the
vacuum system and the other was electric. I quit doing that about the time I started to
run out of panel space!
Now that I am about to eliminate the pneumatic system entirely, I am considering going
back to the dual T&Bs, but with the primary one supplied by the aircraft electrical
system and a second one powered by a dedicated battery.
As many of you may recall, I installed a B&C standby alternator in my airplane about
a year ago. I have now flown with that unit for some 250 hours. So far so good! I have
not had an alternator failure so I guess I didn’t need the standby! Seriously, I hope I
never have need for the thing, but I am real glad it is there.
I obtained a local approval, but the company now has an STC to install the little
twenty ampere alternator on all Bonanza, Debonair and model 36 airplanes from the J35
through the B36TC. It is completely automatic and is usable with either an alternator
or a generator system. Anytime the system voltage drops below normal, the standby
unit automatically picks up the load. If the load is above twenty amps, a little light
flashes warning the operator to initiate a load reduction program.
With one T&B supplied by a dual electrical source and one powered by a separate and
dedicated battery, I feel quite comfortable!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000627 154916 msg10246.tex]

382
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY

Desirability of Warning Flags

Wed, 26 Jan 2000 19:02:56

In a message dated 1/26/00 5:07:53 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I agree only if such a setup includes warning instrumentation to aid in

determine nation of which instrument has failed should they disagree. For
instance, the vacuum AI should have a built in gyro air flag, or an external
gyro air warning system. The electric AI should have a power fail flag.
Best Regards,
Bob

Good Evening Bob,

The difficulty of relying on power indicators to tell you which instrument has failed is
that not all failures result in the flag showing! I have seen horizons and other instruments
fail several times when the flag was still out of sight.
I am sure folks are getting tired of hearing about it, but that is one of the nicest things
about the turn needle. It is so easy to determine whether or not it is working!
Just kick the rudder, if it wiggles, it’s working, period!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000126 190256 msg01798.tex]

383
2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Rapco Standy Vacuum System Desirability

Mon, 24 Jan 2000 19:31:43

In a message dated 1/24/00 6:03:19 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

The problem with the Rapco system is there have been cases of the clutch
failing at the most inconvenient time...when the pump is called on to engage
upon failure of the primary pump. I would not select this system because
it adds the complication of a clutch with uncertain reliability.

Good Evening Bob And All,

I still think the best, cheapest, lightest and most reliable standby system is a pilot well
trained and checked in rate instrument flying. While I think the turn needle is the
easiest and best to fly, even the turn coordinator can be used, given enough practice.
The biggest problem I have had following a gyro failure has been my tendency to make
corrections on the failed instrument. I carry stick on instrument covers to cover the
failed instrument. With it out of sight, the rest is easy. In my early Bonanzas, I always
had two turn needle instruments, one vacuum and one electric. Who could ask for more!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000124 193143 msg01610.tex]

384
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY

Self Contained, Standby AI or T&B

Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:36:37

In a message dated 1/26/00 1:05:33 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:25:43 -0600, George Braly [email protected]

wrote:
Still mo’ better if you have two alternators.
Could you make an arugument for a backup battery (on a trick charge)
feeding a minimal bus (including an electronic AI)? I realize this will be
superfluous when your system becomes available ... but might it suffice
until we can save our pennies for better? I have been mulling this one over
a lot since the Jacoby tragedy.

The big problem with dual electrical power sources is to provide a system that is rela-
tively easy to operate and yet has almost fool proof isolation.
Very early twin installations sometimes had totally separate systems. The left engine
had it’s own generator, battery and all. Same for the right engine. The loads were
split between the two. Some of the electrical items had the capability of being switched
between the two, but things were otherwise completely isolated. Great reliability, but
it took some pilot action to properly utilize.
The majority of the failures on multiengine or multi generator systems have been of the
unanticipated failure type.
The Northeast Airline incident was caused by a wrench that had been left in the main
electrical panel area which fell across the emergency buss and took out the entire elec-
trical system.
We had a trainer out on a night IFR training flight many years ago which had a complete
electrical failure when one of the primary generator cables failed, fell of it’s mounting
stud and contacted the airframe blowing the battery and all.
My little standby alternator works great, but it is still connected to the primary aircraft
system and is therefore subject to one of those ”completely impossible” failures. Highly
unlikely maybe, but never completely impossible!
That is why I like the idea of a self contained completely separate unit. To protect
against a Jacoby type accident, it would have to be placed on the glare shield in any
actual instrument condition. I don’t know if I would be disciplined enough to do that
or not!
If it fastens to the airframe, it has to be approved.
Happy Skies,

385
2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Old Bob
P S Nothing is easy is it!
[ARTICLES/20000126 083637 msg01747.tex]

386
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY

Self Contained, Standby AI or T&B

Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:39:56

In a message dated 4/28/00 10:28:40 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Would you consider providing emergency power to one or both? If so, how?

Good Evening John,

My thought has always been to have a completely separate T&B. One that is not
mounted in the panel and is powered by batteries. When I was a new Convair Captain
in the late fifties, the Convair had some electrical failure problems (It was an all electric
airplane, no pneumatic system at all.) I carried a T&B with some batteries taped around
it in my flight bag and always figured I could get it down safely using that package. A
standby power system could be designed that would power just the standby attitude
indicator and the T&B, but I don’t think I would do it. Not that it wouldn’t be a good
idea, I just don’t feel it is that necessary. My completely portable system would require
no approval of any sort. The built in one would have to be approved.
Whatever works!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000428 233956 msg07279.tex]

387
2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Self Contained, Standby AI or T&B

Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:14:37

In a message dated 6/30/00 2:48:50 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Do you think you will have any trouble having the separate battery ap-
proved on a 337?

Good Evening Bob,

I don’t think so, but I have been wrong before!
I would approach it from the view point that it was not a required piece of equipment
and that it would be installed in a manner so that it could not interfere with the normal
operation of the aircraft and it’s required equipment.
I might even placard it to state that it should not be used as a device to aid in flight
control.
What you do in an emergency is your business!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000630 221437 msg10410.tex]

388
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY

Standby AI
Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:51:56

In a message dated 1/25/00 9:53:02 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Years ago, I’m pretty sure the airlines had a neat, small artificial horizon
that went in the central panel, with its own battery, good for many hours.
If the entire aircraft went dead, that AH would keep on a’turnin’, perhaps
with a tiny light, I don’t recall.

Good Evening John,

This may be just faulty memory, but as near as I can recall, the little standby horizons
were added to the turbine fleet in the late sixties. It is also my recollection that several
of the early installations were powered by a designated standby NiCad battery. I believe
the battery in the 727 was mounted just forward of the engineers panel.
I remember that I was surprised when the newer airplanes no longer had the designated
battery and the standby horizons were powered from ships power. I am sure that was
the way it was on our rope start 747s and the 767. It seemed like a step backwards at
the time. Personally if I had to make a choice between a standby horizon and a turn
needle, I’d take the turn needle, but it would be nice to have both.
Incidentally, as I read the regs, a horizon, turn coordinator or turn needle instrument
mounted in a box with a few ”C” cells to provide power and placed on the glare shield
requires no certification of any kind to be used as an emergency method of keeping the
aircraft under control.
It obviously could not serve as any required redundant system, but most of us GA types
don’t have a legal requirement for such a standby system.
I carried a similar unit made up of a T&B with three nine volt ”B” batteries and a switch
taped to it when I was a junior Convair captain and Northeast had their problem.
Never had to use it for real, but it worked just fine when I practiced with it!
If it is stuck in the panel or in any way hooked to the aircraft, then it has it be approved!
Such is life!!
Enough old man rambling,
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000125 235156 msg01737.tex]

389
2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Standby Alternators - B&C Unit

Sun, 2 Jul 2000 21:45:46

In a message dated 7/2/00 6:56:24 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

is their an STC for early bonanza, or from like say 84 model .

Good Evening Avi,

If you are asking whether or not the B&C is approved on a 1984 airplane, the answer is
yes.
The B&C standby alternator has STC approval on all Bonanza, Debonair and Model 36
products from the 1958 J35 through the latest production model 36s. It has been used
as standard equipment on the Mooneys equipped for flight in known icing for several
years and is available on the latest Beech products as a factory installed option.
There is an excellent service history with no known failures.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000702 214546 msg10463.tex]

390
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY

Standby Instrumentation
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 10:35:24

In a message dated 1/27/00 8:33:56 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I think what we have is OK, but all planes should have the additional
electric horizon.
Mike McNamara

Good Morning Mike,

I can accept your reasoning on all of the points you make except the one copied above.
I may not agree with your conclusions, but that is merely a difference of opinion.
I am totally opposed to trying to require everyone to do anything.
We should each evaluate our own requirements and equip our machines as we see fit!
The safety records do not show a problem with minimally equipped aircraft. One pilot,
one engine, one generator, one radio flight has an excellent safety record. All of the
redundancy that we tend to add is nice because we all, me included, feel that we are
doing something to add to the safety of our flight by those additions.
Unfortunately, most of the aircraft that are involved in serious incidents do have multiple
power sources and lots of redundancy.
It doesn’t seem to be a matter of what equipment is available, but how that equipment
is used.
You prefer an additional horizon. I prefer a backup T&B. That is a function of our
differing background, training and the way we use our equipment.
Nevertheless, those who fly with no backups have at least as good a safety record as we
who load our aircraft up with extra gadgets!
Yours for individual decision.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000127 103524 msg01835.tex]

391
2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Standby Instrumentation
Sun, 27 Feb 2000 07:23:42

Good Morning All,

Those of you who are considering utilizing an electric standby horizon as a back up
instrument might want to look at the instrument described at: http://www.smithsind-
aerospace.com/isis/intro1.html
It is designed to be used for standby instrumentation in aircarrier and corporate aircraft.
The dimensions are three inches by three inches by nine inches. It weighs only 3.75
pounds. The thing is entirely solid state, no mechanical gyro at all. The expected
service life is 17,000 hours. I could not locate a specification as to power required other
than it consumes 14 watts at maximum brightness. I would imagine that is at 24 volts.
The rumored price?
Well, let’s see if anyone is interested and I will let you know what I heard!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000227 072342 msg03710.tex]

392
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY

Standby Instrumentation
Sun, 27 Feb 2000 08:22:02

In a message dated 2/27/00 7:06:53 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I could not locate a specification as to power required other than it con-

sumes 14 watts at maximum brightness. I would imagine that is at 24
volts.

More Information:
It is a 28 volt unit. While the manufacturer lists it as 3 by 3 by 9 in the first page of the
specifications, that is a little optimistic. It is a standard ARINC instrument size which
would require a 3.26 inch square of panel space. It is also rather deep. Nine inches is
correct for the case, but the devices on the back of the case eat up another inch and a
half plus the required connectors. I would imagine it would take at least eleven inches,
maybe even a foot, behind the panel. At one-half amp power consumption, batteries
should be able to power it for quite a while. That 14 watts evidently includes the internal
lighting. Amazing!
It includes the capability of displaying CDI information along with attitude, direction,
airspeed, altitude and skid/slip.
Who will be the first kid on the block to get one?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000227 082202 msg03713.tex]

393
2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Standby Instrumentation
Sun, 27 Feb 2000 08:57:06

In a message dated 2/27/00 7:48:02 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Uhhhh gulp ... I’ll bite....

Are you sitting down?

18,000 UK pounds, and that is wholesale! Any idea what the exchange rate is?
Remember that redundant statement?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000227 085706 msg03714.tex]

394
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY

Standby Instrumentation
Sun, 27 Feb 2000 18:56:42

In a message dated 2/27/00 5:25:01 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

Great box! But they’re not the only ones, and possibly not the cheapest.
See also the BFGoodrich GH-3000 http://bfgavionics.com/docs/gh3000.html
and http://www.meggittavi.com/magic/index.htm . With these sorts of
instruments trickling down from big iron, and things like Sierra Flight Sys-
tems percolating up from the experimental world, combined with relatively
affordable traffic and terrain avoidance systems, we’re witnessing a revo-
lution in GA avionics. The Garmin 430 and Sandel EFIS were just the
beginning...

Good Evening Douglas,

It is an exciting time!
The last price I saw for the Goodrich box was $45,000. Do you know if that is still a
current figure? Any idea what the Meggitt MAGIC is going for?
If the spin down in price for these units is anywhere near the degree of reduction that
we have witnessed for the GPS boxes, something competitive should be available in a
couple of years or less.
The only cloud on the horizon (no pun intended) is that those units are only used in
aviation. The reason GPS prices have dropped so rapidly is due to the adoption of the
technology by the general public.
Still it is a hopeful sign!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000227 185642 msg03737.tex]

395
2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Standby Instrumentation
Sun, 27 Feb 2000 21:22:33

In a message dated 2/27/00 8:03:24 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

The other key cost factor will be installation, which I would expect to run
at least 50% of hardware cost on complex systems like these. 

Good Evening Douglas,

I think all of your points are well taken. The Smith and Goodrich boxes are definitely
oriented toward the airline emergency standby roll.
I wonder, though, about installation costs for the Smith unit. It could be very little!
All it requires is a twenty-four/twenty-eight volt power source, pitot/static connections
and the left/right, up/down indications for the CDI function. That is pretty minimal!
The type instrument that requires a lot of installation cost is something like the Sandel
that uses numerous outside sensors and then just presents the information.
In any case, they are all out of my price class now, but who knows what the future may
bring?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000227 212233 msg03745.tex]

396
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY

Standby Instrumentation
Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:02:51

Good Morning All,

This is from another list in reference to the Smith Standby unit, but may be of interest
to a few.
n a message dated 2/28/00 6:50:14 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

Looks like the Sandel unit, which costs approx $8,000.

Good Morning Peter,

Yes, it LOOKs like the Sandel, but it is a lot different!
The Sandel has no artificial horizon function and that is the primary requirement for a
standby unit as required by Part 121.
In addition, the Sandel requires a number of sensors to supply information which it dis-
plays. It provides no basic information, it just displays information from other sources.
The Smith box is totally self contained except for whatever information is chosen to be
displayed on the two CDI bars.
It has self contained totally solid state devices to supply roll, yaw and pitch information.
From the brochure, I can’t tell whether it has any method of self alignment with a North
reference. It might require setting as does an old AN gyro, but I didn’t note a means to
do so.
The Sandel is an exciting development and is very handy when presentation space on
the panel is at a premium, but the Smith, or other similar device, is exciting in that it is
all self contained and requires nothing but a twenty-eight volt power source to provide
adequate roll, pitch and yaw information. Hook up a pitot and static source and it will
provide airspeed and altitude. Add the input from any left/right or up/down steering
source and it presents that information as would any CDI instrument.
The price is steep, but the potential for a self contained emergency device is enormous.
Since it requires only 14 watts, about one half ampere, of electrical power, it could be
powered by a small standby battery for a long time. With no other inputs than the
electrical power, it could be used to safely keep the airplane under control.
I would love to see a derivative which would not even have the airspeed, altitude, heading
and CDI functions if the price were to be reduced commensurately.
Unlike the full glass cockpit aircraft, we GA types rarely lose our airspeed, altitude
or primary heading source. If we had a complete electrical failure, we wouldn’t have
anything to feed the CDI either!

397
2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Something like a simple version of the Smith powered by a small battery along with
handheld GPS and Comm would provide everything we need to get the machine safely
on the ground.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000228 090251 msg03760.tex]

398
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.7. AVIONICS-STANDBY

Wind Verses Engine Driven Standby Alternators

Sun, 2 Jul 2000 15:51:16

In a message dated 7/2/00 2:14:14 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

In the midst of this thread about all electric airplanes and standby equip-
ment, would anyone care to comment about the wind-driven alternator as
a standby power source?

Good Afternoon Alan,

I prefer the engine driven unit! It has been my experience that standby devices that
aren’t regularly exercised tend to not work correctly when deployed in an emergency.
I have had dump valves hang up and wind driven emergency equipment fail to work on
airliners.
I don’t think I want to mess with them on a light airplane.
The B&C 20 Ampere unit that I have has worked just as I hoped for a year and over
two hundred and fifty hours.
I imagine that the one which George Braly is developing will be as reliable and will have
the added advantage of being capable of selfexcitation.
Since the standby engine driven alternators are so readily available and use very conser-
vative standard components, I see little reason to cut up the airplane to install something
that would take action by the pilot to put in service.
The B&C is turning any time the engine is running. It will pick up the load anytime the
primary alternator is not providing the proper voltage. It is completely automatic and
will even help if the primary unit is just a little overloaded. There is no action needed
by the pilot.
I would imagine that George’s unit will have a similar capability.
Both the old Beech standby eight amp generator and the wind driven alternator take
pilot action to place in service.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000702 155116 msg10454.tex]

399
2.8. AVIONICS-WXAVOID CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

2.8 AVIONICS-WXAVOID

400
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.8. AVIONICS-WXAVOID

RADAR
Sun, 11 Jun 2000 09:51:38

In a message dated 6/11/00 8:17:00 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

There is one thing that I don’t recall being discussed here on this topic.
The airline weather radars utilize large antennas. The radar antennas on
our airplanes are of a smaller diameter, especially those on singles.

Good Morning Ron,

I know my messages get awfully long and boring, but I do believe I have mentioned that
fact several times in this discussion. I know John Whitehead has brought it up at least
once!
I agree completely with your discussion.
In addition, I still like the C-band better than X-band for exactly the same reason. It
doesn’t show as sharper a definition and takes a little more learning time to get proper
interpretations, but it does penetrate even the strongest cells to show what is behind
them. The trouble is that it can’t be made to work at all with the small antennas. The
physics don’t change even with better technology. A wave length is a wave length and
antenna size is still dependent on the wave length. There is just no way to carry those
large antennas in a small plane. Even the Convair 340 was barely large enough. That
was one of the reasons most airlines opted for the X-band in lieu of the C-band. It was
a lot cheaper and easier to mount the smaller antenna that could be used by X-band.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000611 095138 msg09505.tex]

401
2.8. AVIONICS-WXAVOID CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

RADAR
Mon, 19 Jun 2000 07:35:59

In a message dated 6/19/00 4:08:38 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

but I believe that the big red blob on the screen depicts an area that is
more likely than not to have severe or extreme turbulence associated,

Good Morning Eric,

The big red blob tells you were the rain is. Whether that rain is associated with turbu-
lence or not is dependent on the shape of the blob and the gradients of the rain around
the center. It was easier to discern the difference on the old non color C band radars
than it is on the modern X band stuff. Heavy rain WILL almost always be accompanied
by a strong down draft and if performance is a problem, it might be pertinent to avoid
it for that reason. In addition, there may be a fair amount of turbulence as the area is
approached and departed. The air that is coming down in the rain storm hits the ground
and spreads out into horizontal components. That can cause some pretty bumpy rides
around the outside of the storm area. It can be worse in areas where that horizontal
component is influenced by topographical features. We then may encounter orographic
turbulence from those horizontal wind components.
There is no magic bullet other than to park the airplane and don’t fly at all.
Beyond that, one should learn what tools are available and use them all for their best
individual characteristics. The sferic is a VERY useful tool.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000619 073559 msg09850.tex]

402
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.8. AVIONICS-WXAVOID

RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder, etc.)

Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:02:01

In a message dated 6/7/00 8:33:31 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Reports that sferics amount of only a ’feel good’ or ’warm fuzzy’ device at
best and provide a false sense of secruity at worse. I initially dismissed these
reports as so may pilots have written anecdotal stories similiar to Ed’s. On
the surface these stories appear convincing in themselves. However the
negative reports I have read all share a common thread: they are from
ATP level pilots who fly a lot, fly a lot of IMC and have continuously cross
checked sferic data with on board radar and ATC calls. Now before blasting
this as unscientific (it is of course) and pointing out that radar and sferics
display different phenomena be aware these pilots are fully aware of these
issues. They are interesing in missing thunderstorms and to a person say
radar properly interepreted does this and sferics do not.

Good Morning John,

Well, here is a person who will not agree with those you referred to. The radar and
the sferic boxes show different things. Neither of them show the ”whole ” picture all by
themselves. Either device needs to be used as one part of the information on which to
make an operational decision. The look out the windshield and the reports from others
along with a knowledge of the weather system to be dealt with are all important.
Both radar and sferics are very helpful. My experience with radar in Bonanzas and
Barons has been that the radar available to small aircraft is nowhere near as helpful as
the radar we were able to carry in the large aircraft.
In fact, I don’t think the X band radar now used in most new airplanes is anywhere
near as helpful as the old C band radar available years ago. However, the C band radar
required a much bigger antenna and took a LOT longer to learn to use. It required a
considerable amount of tuning for individual conditions to gain that superior picture.
Like so many things, in making something easier to use and to teach, we have lost a lot
of useful capability, but back to the sferics.
It is my experience that the sferic box is equally as useful as the radar we have available
in small aircraft to aid in missing a storm. What the sferic will not give is an accurate
distance from the storm. Bearings are good but distance isn’t. However, the sferics will
tell of a storm behind the one you can see. With X band radar, the closer storm often
hides another storm which is lurking behind the one ahead.
Radar shows water. Water does not necessarily mean turbulence. If there is a shallow
gradient from the heavy rain, to light rain, to no rain. It could be a completely smooth
ride, yet it would show a solid red core on a color radar. Turbulence is almost always
associated with lightning and sferics show lightning, but not all turbulence! Nothing is
all things to all folks.

403
2.8. AVIONICS-WXAVOID CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

For the dollars spent, the weight, power and space required, I chose the sferic. I find it
very useful. I was an active user of radar from the days of experimental sets on a test
basis to the present time. I think I should qualify as a knowledgeable user.
It would be nice to have both, but certainly not required.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000607 110201 msg09236.tex]

404
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.8. AVIONICS-WXAVOID

RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder, etc.)

Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:42:49

In a message dated 6/8/00 9:45:11 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Old Bob, I in no way doubt your conclusions (however, the distance and
radial spread issues have concerned me). Let me ask some specifics to see
if we are talking about the same useage pattern.

Hi John,
First, the distance on the radar is very accurate, but can be of limited usefulness due
to signal attenuation. The distance with sferic is relative to the strength of the stroke
adjusted by an algorithm to give an approximate distance. It can be substantially in
error, but I find the accuracy of range information to be very good up to 30 or 40 miles.
For very strong weather systems, a storm four hundred miles away will occasionally
show up as being one hundred and fifty to two hundred miles away. I don’t find that a
problem since I generally know about that storm already!
The azimuth information on both the radar and the sferic is excellent.
Here are my answers to your specific questions.

1. Would you trust your sferic to detect and miss embedded thunderstorms
assuming you are flying IMC? Do you do in fact fly IMC with embedded
thunderstorms?

Yes, and yes. (Both with reservations explained later)

2. How about widespread mass thunderstorms like we see in the summer

from unstable conditions? Do you trust your sferic to guide you through
these when you are in and out of IMC?

Yes and yes. (Same cop out)

It is these two issues that really have me concerned about the utility of a
sferic. If I can see the weather on Nexrad and Intellicast before launching,
follow it with FSS and ATC plus stay visual ... well, sure an sferic would
add to the comfort level but it actually would add no operational advantage.
This is the way most say they use their sferic.

The sferic is just one device, a useful one, but still just one source of data. I use it along
with all other data to provide the guidance required. The thing that scares me the most
is hail. I want to have a pretty good idea of the condition and characteristics of the
general airmass through which I am flying before I stick my nose in it, with or without
my Strikefinder or radar.

To restate the case, what I’m looking for is a way to stay out of trouble

405
2.8. AVIONICS-WXAVOID CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

when I am in the clag (not on the ground) and wondering what might
have popped up since I launched. Say crossing a trough at night IMC. Or
with layers up to the flight levels and widely scattered thunderstorms. I
once thought the sferic was the answer to these situations, but some say it
definately is not.

As I said before, there is no device that gives the complete answer. It is a matter of
using what you have to do the job at hand. When we get down to just evaluating the
use of radar against the use of a Strikefinder or Stormscope, it is a little easier. The
radar shows water. It may or may not show hail, depending on the temperature. The
sferics show only electrical activity. Nothing else.
Heavy rain is not necessarily turbulent. It can be very smooth though it is always
associated with strong downdrafts. The turbulence comes when one is transitioning
from one intensity to another. If the gradient is gradual, the ride is acceptable. If the
gradient is sharp, you can get the bejeezers beat out of you. That is also where the
lightning is generally found.
As I said before, you can have a picture on a color radar that shows a big red dot in
the middle of a big yellow and then green doughnut with very slow gradual transitions
on all sides. That condition is flyable and will generally be quite smooth but with a
substantial loss in performance due to the downdraft. It will show nothing on a sferics
detector. That is one case were the sferics do a better job than the radar. You would
undoubtedly fly around that blob if you saw it on the radar. The aircarrier for whom I
flew required that we do so. The FAA controller will steer you away from such a system,
yet flight through the area is not likely to be any problem at all. Does that mean that
you should disregard what is shown on a radar or advice given by the controller? Of
course not. What it means is that there is more to storm avoidance than purchasing a
device to mount in the airplane!

I would like to see these issues addressed in a controlled scientific analysis.

If these devices do work then I doubly wonder studies or analyses like this
don’t exist. Of course they may and I simply haven’t found them yet.
That’s why I’m asking.

There is voluminous data available on radar. Unfortunately I can’t tell you where
to locate it! UAL had an airplane designated for radar research which went out and
purposely flew through mid western thunderstorms to find out how things worked. That
was during the early fifties. After that research was completed, we started to equip our
airplanes with radar. I believe that was in about 1954.
I know that Ryan did a lot of flight testing for the Storm Scope and I imagine Insight
did some more for the Strikefinder. Why don’t you contact them and ask?

Thanks.
-jts Arlington, TX

Your welcome!

406
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.8. AVIONICS-WXAVOID

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000608 114249 msg09338.tex]

407
2.8. AVIONICS-WXAVOID CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder, etc.)

Sat, 10 Jun 2000 08:57:04

Good Morning John,

I guess the easy answer is: Why would you pay any attention to what a Mooney pilot
says?
In all truth though, I think what you are seeing is people trying to compare apples and
oranges combined with fifty years of simplification of training.
When we first started using radar, we were taught about things like gradient, smooth
flight in certain types of heavy rain, potential for hail, association of ”hook” signals and
a whole lot more.
It soon became apparent that the education required to learn all of the fine points of
radar use was very time consuming. At the same time, the aircraft in use were getting
faster and gaining longer legs.
It was expedient to train the aviators of the day to just stay away from anything that
showed a lot of water on the scope. The traffic situation and the capabilities of the
aircraft were such that relatively little efficiency was lost by detouring everything that
was at all suspicious.
We now have a couple of generations of aviators that are petrified of ever flying through
a rain storm, regardless of whether there is turbulence there or not.
If you are looking at a color radar showing a big red blob that you have been told will
tear your airplane into little pieces and spit it out the top, it is very hard to trust a
relatively low cost little box of dots that tells you flight through that big red blob is OK.
There is no doubt that the Strikefinder (or Storm Scope) will disagree with the radar
often, but other times, they will agree closely.
Neither device will assure a smooth ride.
I guess I am repeating myself for the umpteenth time, but radar and sferic equipment
are merely two of the tools that should be used to analyze the situation. You can get
by adequately with neither. IFR aviators did it before either was invented.
Those who understood the weather got by fine.
Those who didn’t respect the problem, bent some airplanes.
I remember flying with what I felt was a grizzled old Captain (He was probably all of
thirty-five or forty years old!) who stated that he had never seen a thunderstorm that
was worth detouring and always just stayed on course and drove right on through. A
couple of years later, he ran into a doozey! From then on, he was a believer.
That was just about the same time that radar was starting to be installed. The first
couple of years, it was used to gain experience by comparing it’s story with what the

408
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.8. AVIONICS-WXAVOID

pilots had learned from the school of hard knocks. That experience was jelled into
something that could easily be taught and that is what the industry uses today. Certainly
not perfect, but eminently usable.
I fear that your Mooney friends just don’t have the complete picture either.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000610 085704 msg09438.tex]

409
2.8. AVIONICS-WXAVOID CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder, etc.)

Sat, 10 Jun 2000 23:49:43

In a message dated 6/10/00 1:12:49 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Ironically what we do have going here for the sferic hypothesis are a LOT
of positive experiences. But so did the flat earth theory.
I tend to believe in the sferic, but not quite enough yet to purchase one
and place my life on the line when IMC in an unstable atmosphere. That
may change.

Good Evening John,

I feel I should answer your message, but I am not sure what the question is!
Does a lightning detection system have value in avoiding turbulence? Absolutely. Are
there other ways of avoiding turbulence? Absolutely!
It has been shown many times that an area heavy with lightning will be turbulent, but
so will flight near a rotor cloud. A rotor cloud won’t show up on a lightning detector or
a radar. You do avoid rotor clouds, don’t you?
Can there be smooth flight in heavy rain? Absolutely
Will it always be smooth in heavy rain? Not at all, but if there is no lightning it probably
will be smooth.
If you accidentally fly your airplane into heavy turbulence, is it likely to come unglued?
Extremely unlikely.
I know of no airplanes that have been destroyed by turbulence if the pilot was able to
keep the airplane under control, except for a few cases where the structure was found
to be deficient and not in conformity to the type design.
National Airlines had a DC-6B that shed it’s wings during a flight across the Gulf Of
Mexico some years back. The NTSB laid the blame on the Captain stating that he
had flown into conditions beyond the capability of the airframe to withstand the stress.
Some folks didn’t agree with that finding and continued to try to find the wreckage.
After an extensive search, the aircraft was found. It was discovered that there was a
manufacturing defect in the wing structure which had been there since the airplane was
new. It reduced the ultimate failure point to somewhere between 2 and 2.5 Gs. The
entire DC-6 and DC-6B fleet was checked. It was found that there were a number of
aircraft flying that had the same defect in the structure. That means that all of those
airplanes had been flying in regular air carrier service with a wing that was about half
as strong as the wing on your Bonanza. No other one had come apart and that was
before radar. Most inflight breakups are for the same reason as JFKs airplane broke up.
The pilot lost control of the aircraft and let it get outside the design envelope.

410
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.8. AVIONICS-WXAVOID

Considering the thousands upon thousands of flights that have been conducted in some
very violent weather, it is a testament to the basic strength of the fleet that so few have
been lost. It means that our pilots are rather competent as well!
I don’t mean to encourage a cavalier attitude toward IFR flight, but there really isn’t
very much weather out there that is violent enough to tear the airplane apart or even
to make a competent pilot lose control.
Stay away from tornados, avoid fast moving cold fronts. Be aware of the possibility of
hail and use what you have available. Even a small amount of caution should provide a
safe, if not a comfortable, ride.
I think you will by now have noted that most folks who have experience with big air-
plane radar, small plane radar and lightning detection equipment, have decided that the
sferics do add to the capability and usefulness of the aircraft. It is a relatively common
occurrence to have the sferic verify that heavy rain shown on the center or flight watch
scope is not dangerous or turbulent. If that heavy rain is accompanied by lightning, it
should be avoided.
If you figure out how to avoid a rotor cloud, that will also add to the number of smooth
flights you have! Everything is relative!!
There is no one answer as to what it takes to ensure safe, let alone smooth, flight.
You state: ”but not quite enough yet to purchase one and place my life on the line when
IMC in an unstable atmosphere.” I don’t think anyone is recommending that you place
your life on the line.
I also don’t think flying in bumpy air constitutes placing your life on the line.
It has to be pretty bad weather to break up an airplane. It is almost unthinkable that
even the most inattentive pilot could stumble into that sort of condition without some
degree of warning.
Relax and enjoy, stay attentive and you will be fine, sferics or no sferics, but a Strikefinder
or a Stormscope will add to your capability. So would a radar, but that costs a lot more
in money, weight and space. I think that for we GA types, the sferics give a lot more
capability than the types of radar that would be usable on a Bonanza. The best of
radars can’t tell you for sure that it will be smooth in heavy rain. A very knowledgeable
user might be able to come up with a very good guess. But, the sferic is much easier to
use and interpret. Plus it is a lot cheaper.
I know I am rambling, but I’m still not sure of the question!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000610 234943 msg09485.tex]

411
2.8. AVIONICS-WXAVOID CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder, etc.)

Sun, 11 Jun 2000 00:10:53

In a message dated 6/10/00 10:04:29 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

The airlines are required to have radar, so they buy it. They are not
required to have stormscope, so they do not buy it.

Good Evening Alan,

I’m afraid I must disagree with that statement. The airlines are in the business of
making money, just as are most of us. I imagine that is at least part of your reason for
engaging in the practice of law.
The airlines tend to buy equipment that will allow them to do their job well at the
lowest cost. Radar was not developed by the federal government. It was developed by
the electronics industry with heavy support from the airlines. UAL supplied an airplane
and crew to fly in the weather and develop operating procedures. I know that American
and Northwest were heavily involved as well.
Radar soon showed that it could help provide the kind of smooth flight that our passen-
gers desired while reducing the degree of excursion from course that sometimes resulted
from that search for smooth air. UAL put it first on their Convairs because the Convairs
had the least capability of detouring the weather by other means.
I think it is possible that the sferics could reduce delays and provide greater efficiency
for major carriers, but it would take complete retraining of a couple of generations of
pilots, regulators and aircraft educators.
So far, no one has made the effort.
I don’t like all of the decisions made by management, but the airlines are doing a good
job of providing a low cost and safe transportation system. It is not a mere compliance
program.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000611 001053 msg09486.tex]

412
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.8. AVIONICS-WXAVOID

Stormscope WX7A Verses Strikefinder

Tue, 28 Apr 1998 18:08:49

Good Evening Ray Lockhart,

In a message dated 98-04-28 14:40:41 EDT, you write:

My V36B has a WX-7A which was in the plane when I bought it. It seems
to work OK.

My V35B also had a WX7A in it when I bought it nine years ago. It worked very well.
Presentation, range and bearing was about on par with my Strikefinder. The azimuth
is always pretty good, but the range is rather iffy. Both units seem quite accurate when
you are within 30 or 40 miles of the storm but accuracy falls off with distance. Since
they are both passive receivers and the range is dtermined by how much noise the storm
is making, that makes sense.
I replaced the WX7A with the Strikefinder primarily because the Strikefinder weighs
2.2 pounds and the WX7A weighs 19.2 pounds. Both figures include the antenna. The
Strikefinder is contained in one panel unit and the antenna where the WX7A has the
panel indicator, a panel mounted control box and a remote amplifier in addition to the
antenna.
There was also an announcement at about that time from 3M (who owned Stormscope
then) that they would no longer support the WX7A. It seems that the manufacturer of
one of the primary power tubes or something was no longer going to build the required
part and no suitable replacements were available.
The Strikefinder was not only lighter and cheaper than anything Stormscope offered,
but it took up less space in the airplane and the presentation turns with the fluxgate.
Not horribly important but kind of fun to have.
I have flown with the Strikefinder about 1200 hours and find it a very useful tool.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980428 180849 msg02160.tex]

413
2.8. AVIONICS-WXAVOID CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

Strikefinder Display
Sun, 1 Nov 1998 18:30:08

Good Evening Mark and Eric,

In a message dated 11/1/98 5:02:02 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

The ads show nice bright red dots, but in daylight then are washed out and
in direct sunlight they nearly disappear.

Interesting that you both have problems with the display washing out on the Strikefinder.
I have never had a problem reading mine in seven years and some 1400 hours operation
of the unit.
I wonder if the difference is in the location? Mine is mounted on the lower subpanel
beneath the floating panel just above and to the left of the trim wheel. It is a rather
protected location and that might be making the difference.
I had a Stormscope before the Strikefinder and replaced it with the Strikefinder mainly to
eliminate some 15 pounds and gain more panel space. I am sure the newer Stormscopes
are lighter than the one I had and I don’t think they have the extra control panel any
longer either.
In any case I have been very pleased with the Strikefinder and it’s presentation. I
particularly like the fact that it does rotate with the flux gate compass. That probably
doesn’t make any real difference in usability, but it looks neat!
My unit is serial number 31.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981101 183008 msg06569.tex]

414
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.8. AVIONICS-WXAVOID

Strikefinder and Static Wicks

Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:32:06

Good Morning All,

I have never noted the static problem on my Strikefinder and my airplane has no static
wicks installed. They were never standard equipment though Beech would install them
as a customer option.
I do find that there are places around the country where I occasionally see spurious
signals on the unit. North of St. Louis where McDonnel Douglas was doing electronic
warfare tests and near the Fermi laboratories west of Chicago are a couple of places that
have disturbed my set.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980429 093206 msg02173.tex]

415
2.8. AVIONICS-WXAVOID CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

WX Avoidance Strategies
Sun, 18 Jun 2000 23:39:49

In a message dated 6/18/00 10:04:53 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

George, with all due respect and meaning no offense ... You’ve got rocks
in your head!

Good Evening Eric,

I do believe you are missing the point. The level of water in the storm is not an indication
of turbulence. It is the gradient between the shafts of water that make the turbulence.
When we first got radar, we flew through that stuff all of the time. The trouble was
that it took too much training to teach the troops how to tell the difference between the
storms that would have heavy rain with light or no turbulence and those storms that
are very rough. We now have a couple of generations of pilots who have been taught, as
have you, that just because it shows red on the radar, it is bad and dangerous.
It is unfortunate because many trips are canceled unnecessarily and many long diver-
sions are made that would not have to be made. The sferic, either a Stormscope or
a Strikefinder, adds a dimension to the evaluation that does tell whether that hunk of
water is going to be turbulent or not.
Until we all get to the point of properly evaluating the weather instead of making a knee
jerk reaction to a red blob on the radar screen. No improvement is likely.
The radar is one tool. The sferic is another. The Weather Channel is important and so
are reports from other aircraft. Whatever can be gained from approach control or the
center is icing on the cake. A broad smooth radar picture with gradual changes from
one color to the next combined with a sferic picture showing no electrical activity is a
safe and complete indication of the potential for a smooth ride!
You can always park the airplane and not fly at all. That is a valid thing to do, but
don’t insult the intelligence of one who has taken the time and the effort to learn how
to find the smooth spots IF they exist!
There IS more than one way to skin a cat!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000618 233949 msg09842.tex]

416
CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS 2.8. AVIONICS-WXAVOID

WX Avoidance Strategies
Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:05:37

In a message dated 6/19/00 7:12:17 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

If I misread, then I apologize.

Otherwise, it didn’t seem to me like there was much opportunity for George
to interpret the shapes of the blobs and the gradients around.

Good Morning Eric,

No, I think you read it correctly. However, radar is just one of many things that a prudent
pilot evaluates when making such a decision. The fact that his lightning indicating device
was showing strikes where he knew them to be was an excellent confirmation that all of
the other indications were correct and the chances of a smooth, or at least, an acceptable
ride existed.
As I have said so often before: There is no one device that can all by itself guarantee
a smooth ride. It takes knowledge of the weather system and experience in using the
tools that are available. I wish we had had a sferic device available to help us develop
the avoidance guidance for the radar. I am sure that the suggested deviation procedures
would be vastly different from those that were developed.
You, and others, discount the positive experience that many of us have found using
the sferics as purely anecdotal. I guess that is proper in that all experience is basically
anecdotal. Just because someone has a smooth ride through an area that some feel should
be rough is not by itself proof. However, enough anecdotal experience will eventually be
accepted as an indication of reasonable probability by even the most skeptical scientist.
I have found that my Strikefinder coordinates well with, and confirms my evaluation of,
the conditions prevalent in almost all of the weather conditions I have observed since I
first installed the Strikefinder in the fall of 1991.
I am fortunate to have had a few years of experience trying to work my way around the
country safely and comfortably before we had radar. I was actively using radar during
the time in which we were developing the procedures that are now used as the Holy
Grail of weather avoidance.
My Strikefinder does not give me the capability of flying through all of the weather
observed, but it is a great help in the decisions that I do make. I would still fly without
it, but I would probably make greater diversions from course than are now required.
In some 54 years and 36,000 hours of flying, I have found that there are times to park
it and wait the weather out. There are other times when a small deviation can make a
flight practical and others where major deviations are best.
The first order of business for me is to have an understanding of the airmass with which

417
2.8. AVIONICS-WXAVOID CHAPTER 2. AVIONICS

I am working. From there on, it is to use the tools available in the most efficient manner.
That, to me, appears to be what George was doing.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000619 120537 msg09876.tex]

418
Chapter 3

DESIGN

419
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

35F vs. 35H

Mon, 31 Jan 2000 19:53:31

In a message dated 1/31/00 6:24:14 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

I have a friend who is shopping for an earlier Bonanza. He’s not the com-
puter type but has a question I can’t seem to find an answer to. Was there
much structural difference between the F & H? The F he is looking at
has been upgraded to the IO 470N. The H has the 240hp 470. Comments
please. Thanks, Barry

Good Evening Barry,

The F35 was the next to the last of the ”light” Bonanzas, the last being the G35. The
H35 was the first with the late style spar. Everything on the airplane is just a little
heavier. While the airplane gained weight with each model from the straight 35 all the
way to the last V35B built, the H35 was one of the major steps toward the structure
used on the last ones.
I have never personally gone through the process of getting a 470 or later engine installed
in an airplane that was originally equipped with an E-series engine, but have been told
it is a big job and expensive. If I were interested in buying one that had been converted,
I would want to check out who did the job and what the approval basis was. Check
to see whether or not the engine is approved for full power or whether it is restricted
to the power originally approved for the airframe. It would also be interesting to know
whether the approval covered installing a 520 or 550 as well as the 470. Some do and
others do not.
The early light airplanes are delightful to fly and rather jump off the ground compared
to the later ones. Just imagine how that F35 would go with a 550 on board!
There is an anomaly associated with the later, supposedly heavier and stronger, spar.
It requires an inspection each 500 hours that is not applicable to the spar in the last
fifteen straight 35s and all of the A35 through G35s.
The F35 has a gross of only 2750, the H35 is good for 2900. With comparable equipment
and the same engine installed, that would likely mean the H35 could carry at least 125
more pounds of useful load than the F35. Enough for a nice sized lady friend or two
hours more fuel!
Nothing is easy, is it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000131 195331 msg02185.tex]

420
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

5th or 6th Seat

Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:10:27

Good Morning Skip Weld,

In a message dated 11/13/98 8:33:09 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

I am thinking about selling my K-35 and buying something with 5 or 6

seats.

While the room is adequate and comfort reasonable for the 5th and 6th seat passengers
in the Bonanzas so equipped, it is a rare airplane that can handle anything other than
two adults and four little children due to center of gravity restraints. Beech referred to
that configuration as ”Family Seating” and even dropped the availability of the sixth
seat in 1977 or 78.
If any airplane would be practical for that loading it might well be the ”TC.” It has an
awful lot of extra weight up forward with the turbo and such.
Be sure and check the CG with the fuel loads you will have for landing.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981113 101027 msg06900.tex]

421
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

A36 vs. F33

Thu, 16 Nov 2000 11:40:24

In a message dated 11/16/00 9:31:41 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

The F33 has those big doors aft of the wing with a whole bunch of space
there. My C33 just has a little door with a little space. If they are both
the same length, where did the additional space come from on the F33?
Did they just enlarge the baggage compartment back into the tail?
Mike McNamara

Good Morning Mike,

Yes and no! I think you are confusing the F33 with the model 36. The model 36 is
the one which has the large doors in the aft fuselage. The F33 generally has the same
optional large baggage door that is found on most later V35, V35A and V35B aircraft.
However, the length from the trailing edge of the wing to the aft end of the fuselage
structure is the same on the 33, 35 and 36, therefore, that big double door is stuck into
the same space that was available on even the very earliest model 35s.
Obviously, Beech has moved the rear cabin bulkhead aft on the 33 and 35 series over
the years. I haven’t checked precisely, but I am reasonably confident (how’s that for
hedging!) that the rear bulkhead (the one just aft of that big rear door) in the model 36
is the same distance from the tail as is the rear cabin bulkhead in the last 35s and 33s .
They did add a small baggage compartment even further back into the rear fuselage on
some of the Barons. That might have happened on some of the 36 models. I am sure
that we have many 36 operators on this list who can let us know.
Incidentally, the 36 fuselage was not lengthened by adding a plug as was done on the
stretched Piper Cherokees. It was more of a ”Z” shaped cut that started up, from just
in front of the wing, went vertical to the height of the spars, aft to the back of the second
side windows and then up to the top. That was not done literally, but that was the
effect.
The pilot and front seat passenger are still the same distance from the engine and
propellor as in the 33 and 35 models. The two aft seats in the 36 are the same (almost,
there are some differences in different iterations, but in the order of an inch or so)
distance from the aft end of the fuselage structure as they are in the 33 and 35.
Thus, the cabin has a ten inch stretch and the pilot has a MUCH better downward view
in front of the wing.
Just in case anyone cares, I personally think the 36 is a very nice airplane and if my
mission required the payload capability that it provides, that is what I would have. As
it is, my normal trip is with just my bride and me onboard. I prefer the way it flies and
the extra eight to ten knots I get out of the Bonanza makes it the choice for me.

422
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Before someone jumps on me about the difference in my cruise speed and that 3 knot
difference previously reported, I normally fly at relatively low indicated airspeeds. I
like the efficiency available at the lower speeds and I enjoy flying. I only use maximum
cruise powers when I have the need for speed and that is not often a factor for an old
guy like me. My long time perception is that my V35B is about eight knots faster than
the model 36s that I previously owned. That is, of course a very small sample, and as
George has mentioned, the rigging differences between otherwise identical airplanes is
often responsible for 5 knots and can occasionally make a ten knot difference.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001116 114024 msg16330.tex]

423
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

A36 vs. V-Tail Bonanza

Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:00:13

In a message dated 2/29/00 12:31:27 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Would it be easier to put a V tail on a 36?

Good Morning John,

No doubt that it would! Unfortunately, most of the model 36s seem to be very heavy
airplanes.
Beech claimed that the stretch only added 31 pounds to the empty weight. However,
most of the Model 36 series weight and balance forms I have looked at seem to be 2500
pounds or more. There is no question that those airplanes all had a lot of equipment.
Who knows!
The stretch airplanes that we had, always seemed to be rather heavy and stodgy which
is why I went back to the V-Tail for my retirement airplane.
Even my current Bonanza flies like a Mac truck compared to my sons J model and that
is heavy and ponderous when compared to a C model or earlier.
I guess my dream airplane would still be a 1952 C model with a 550 engine and the
fuselage stretched in the manner of the 36. I would not put in the big cargo door. I like
it a lot. It is (in my opinion) one of the best features of the Model 36, but it has to add
considerable weight.
The thing that I like most about the model 36 is the visibility in front of the wing.
The broader CG range is a close second. The V-tail would not be likely to enjoy the
expanded CG range and I would probably have to carry ballast to keep the CG within
limits when flown with one or two people up front. Since I hate to carry anything that
does not have a purpose, I would probably install a fuselage fuel cell in the back to
handle CG adjustments. That adds to the workload as it would require following a
burnout schedule to keep things in balance.
I guess there is a reason Beech never did it.
But it would be a fun project!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000229 100013 msg03899.tex]

424
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Baron E-55 TE-1152 (oddball serial number)

Thu, 22 Oct 1998 10:35:18

Good Morning Ron Koyich,

In a message dated 10/22/98 9:11:14 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

For instance, take engine operating range on the tach. Serial TE-1084
through TE-1170 (except TE-1152) green arc is from 2000 to 2700. Serials
TE-1152, TE-1171 and after green arc is from 2000 to 2650 (or 2550 with
two blade prop). Red line in both is 2700. This has something to do, I
think, with different McCauley props - there’s an exception for 1152 in that
area, too.

The notation that you have spotted generally refers to an airplane that was pulled off
the line to originate a model, part supplier or series change in the airplane by Beech
Aircraft Corporation. As an example, the later V35B is often referenced as D-10097,
D-10120 and after. The preceding series is often listed as D-9947 thru D- 10119 except
D-10097.
I believe this notation refers to changing from the 12 volt system to the 24 volt one
among other things. It is my understanding that the ”exception” can be as small as a
change in the supplier of a rotating beacon to a major model change.
You probably knew all this already but just want to know the specific change for that
airplane. If you are really curious you might be able to figure it out by careful perusal
and cross referencing of several sections of the parts manual.
Happy Hunting,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981022 103518 msg06192.tex]

425
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Bonanza History
Sun, 7 Sep 1997 14:32:38

To John — The future Bonanza owner.

Glad to have you planning to join the ranks of the most satisfied airplane owners in the
world!
Having said that there are some things that one should be aware of when first becoming
associated with the Bonanza.
First of all, it is an ancient design. The basic layout can be traced to airplanes designed
by Mooney in the thirties. (The Dart, Culver, etc.) The first sketches of the design
during WW II were for a three place conventional gear (tail wheel) airplane. It looked
almost like a Culver Cadet with the tapered square tipped wing substituted for Mooneys
elliptical tipped wing.
Airplanes of that era were regularly designed with the CG where the pilots sat on
the theory that they could then easily handle pilots of many different weights. In the
middle forties when the Beech designers were working to come up with the small cheap
and efficient everymans airplane, their maximum efforts were put to making the airframe
and all of its accessories as light and as efficient as possible consistent with economical
construction technique. They weren’t pushing the aerodynamic design envelope as hard
as they were the production and weight of components envelope.
As we all know, they came up with a winner. The light weight and efficient aerodynamics
combined with superior handling characteristics made a delightful and efficient machine.
Unfortunately the CG envelope was a little narrow.
As the years went by and the back of the airplane was made more and more available
to we aviators to stuff things into it became easier and easier to get the CG too far aft.
The airplane has some very bad flight characteristic with a far aft CG and in the later
versions it is very easy to get it loaded in that manner. This was made even worse when
the large (and very desirable) 80 gallon tankage became available. With the tanks full
the airplane might feel pretty good on takeoff but after burning 450 pounds of fuel from
in front of the CG the airplane could get pretty squirrely. It is worse at low airspeeds
and of course low speed is desirable for landing!
The ones with that funny looking inverted ”T” tail are a little better, especially those
stretch models with the wing moved back 10 inches in relation to the engine. The model
36 can handle things pretty well with careful loading.
Things are made a little worse by the fact that it is usually easier to mount amplifier
boxes, autopilot mixers and servos in the rear so that is commonly where they go.
The Ms and Ns are pretty good about CG if they haven’t had too many things added
in the wrong places.
Modern airplanes using the airfoils with maximum thickness further aft allow the spar

426
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

to go under the rear seat and since the designers now realize that they always have a
pilot they can put the pilot ahead of the CG and things work out real nice.
CG ranges on modern airplanes are much easier to work with. The Bonanzas are fabulous
machines but they are all sensitive to loading and the full fuel and empty fuel wts must
be considered.
Find yourself a good airframe and you can fix everything else. A crummy airframe is
a crummy airframe regardless of what you do to it. Any airplane that has had a lot of
different components added or taken off needs to be looked over very carefully.
The paper work on any airplane that old is likely to be very inaccurate. The only way
to tell for sure what the current weight and CG situation is is to weigh the airplane and
calculate the new CG. It must be done properly by someone with good equipment and
no axe to grind.
I hope you find what you are looking for and look forward to meeting you at some of
the flyins.
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970907 143238 msg01683.tex]

427
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Bonanza Weight
Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:00:57

In a message dated 8/7/00 11:55:59 AM Central Daylight Time, Ernie [email protected]

writes:

I think some of the weight is better soundproofing and plusher interior on

the newer Bo’s, but where in the heck did the rest of weight come from??
All the plush up couldn’t be more than 100 pounds I wonder where did the
other 250 pounds come from???

Good Afternoon Ernie,

Don’t know about all of it, but 78 pounds was for air-conditioning. The owner said he
wanted it without air conditioning, but was told they wouldn’t make them that way. I
haven’t had a chance to ask a Raytheon person about that, but Lynn Jenkins was there
and he said he thought they could still be purchased without air-conditioning.
With the AC installed, they also have to have the 100 amp alternator. Don’t know how
much that weighs but it has to be six or eight pounds.
The airplane also had the crummy little 8 amp backup generator and the associated
relays and wiring along with the big heavy electrical powered standby pressure pump.
There is at least one hundred pounds of aluminum and steel that has been added via
the ”commonality of parts” program.
In order to reduce the parts inventory, Beech started using as many components from
the Baron as they possibly could on the 33s, 35, and 36s. Everything from landing gear
components to some of the little gussets and brackets. It is nice that we can still get
brand new parts for our airplanes, but it is disgusting that they are strong enough to
be used on a six thousand pound airframe!
The best model 35 that I ever owned had forty pounds of radios and a full AN gyro
panel yet it only weighed 1590 pounds empty. Every year that old commonality of parts
bugaboo has snuck the weight higher and higher.
They are a lot stronger than they were in those days, but there are a lot of parts that are
much heavier and stronger than they need to be to attain the current overall structural
strength.
Such is life! If I were in the market for a model 36, I would buy the earliest one I could
find that met my condition specifications. They are a loadhauler, but they need to be
kept light to gain the maximum performance.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000807 150057 msg11851.tex]

428
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Bonanza vs. C-210

Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:43:19

In a message dated 11/16/99 7:40:29 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Fred,
I went through the same ordeal about 1 year ago, the Bonanzas are an
excellent choice. Initial cost and maintenance will be higher than the plane
I purchased. I bought a 1961 Cessna 210 with 2200 TT and 80 SMOH
on eng and prop. In the last 15 months I have taken my private pilots in
this plane and put aprox 200 hours on it. Orriginal cost was $45,500.00
and I have since added some upgrades (newer radio, apholstery and better
brakes) It is a very stable plane to fly, gives me 165 K @ 10,000’ on 11 + -
gallons per/hr.
As a student pilot and now a low time pilot I paid $2,100.00 per year for
insurance. We use our plane much the same as you say you will. We live
in the Seattle area and have gone to Pheonix, San francisco and Calgary,
Alberta with our kids.
Good luck!
Rob Smith

Good Morning Rob,

I am glad that you found an airplane that fit’s you and your family. I have very little
flight time in the C210 but have noted that there are many fine attributes. You can
park a car under each wing in the hangar, you can stand comfortably under the wing
during a summer rain shower (maybe even a winter one!) and it excels at providing a
view of the ground for the passengers.
The 210 has a roomy cabin, an excellent payload capability and a CG range that is the
envy of many Bonanza drivers.
Cessna has done a fine job of adapting the Cessna 170 into a very extensive line of hard
working airplanes. They are to be congratulated!
But, I wonder about the accuracy of the numbers you have given for your attainable
cruise configuration?
I know that my Bonanza is one of the slowest ones in captivity and I am sure there are
others of the same era and power that are at least ten knots faster, still, I have never
had a 210 of any type pass me up! I would imagine a turbo charged one could do so at
altitude, but it has never happened to me.
My airplane requires close to 13 GPH to attain 165 knots at ten thousand feet. If I am
heavy, and due to my overeating, I generally am very heavy, I can only count on around

429
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

156 to 160 at ten thousand burning a full gallon per hour more than do you!
If you are ever in the midwest, I would sincerely appreciate the opportunity to make
a few comparison flights (read flat out race!) including an actual comparison of fuel
burned by making a representative flight and then, filling the fuel cells.
Who knows, maybe the 210 is an even better machine than I thought!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19991117 094319 msg10683.tex]

430
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Buying a Classic
Sun, 22 Aug 1999 14:26:36

In a message dated 8/22/99 9:15:11 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

A partner and I are trying to decide between two 47-48 models. One has
the elec. prop and a 185 hp. The other has the 225 and the Hartzell with
the ad in compliance. If both planes are close in equipment and hours, how
much performance difference is there between the 185 & 225? How much
performance and maintenance difference is there between the hydraulic
prop and the electric? Any information is deeply appreciated because our
experience has been with Cessnas. You can post or reply to me directly at
[email protected] Thanks in advance for your help!

Good Afternoon Larry,

There should be very little difference in performance between a straight 35 equipped
with the E185 and one that has an E225.
The straight 35 airframe is restricted to a maximum of 185 HP for takeoff and 165
continuous regardless of what engine is installed.
I know there are lot’s of folks who are pulling higher horsepower than is allowed. Some
have told me that they had a 337 or other paperwork showing the installation to be
legal for higher power.
I have yet to see even one single airplane that had such paperwork. I doubt if any exists.
There were a lot of structural improvements made in the A35s over the straight 35s.
I consider it unwise to utilize a higher power than is approved on those early airframes.
In the same vein, I would not operate one above the current AD imposed speed limits.
They are wonderful light weight airplanes and perform admirably at the weights and
power settings that are approved. Why take a chance?
With the E225, there is a manifold pressure restriction as well as reduced RPM limits
so as to preclude the engine exceeding 185 horsepower.
I always felt that the Beech electric prop with the 88 inch blades performed a little better
than any shorter bladed prop, but that was a subjective evaluation and not scientifically
measured.
The E225 should give slightly better T/O performance at altitudes above three thousand
feet or so, as three thousand is about where full throttle could be used for takeoff and
the engine would still be developing the full allowed 185 HP. The climb and cruise
performance at various higher altitudes should be slightly better with the 225 for the
same reason, more HP available at any given manifold pressure.
There is a definite advantage in takeoff and climb for the 88 inch prop with either engine.

431
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

An interesting anomaly appears in the Aircraft Specifications concerning approval for

higher horsepower engines in the A35 and B35 airplanes which does not apply to the
straight 35 series.
If an E185-11 is installed in an A35 or B35, it is restricted to the same horsepower as
the engine originally installed in the airframe, just as is the straight 35. The full 205
horsepower is NOT allowed.
Should you happen to put an E225-8 in an A35 or B35, the full 225 horsepower is
available on both the A and the B. Doesn’t make sense I know, but that is the way they
were approved.
Hope that helps!!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990822 142636 msg07144.tex]

432
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

C and D Models
Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:24:31

In a message dated 9/3/99 9:32:41 AM Central Daylight Time, beech [email protected]

writes:

Although no one does it, the only way to ensure there will be no surprises
is to perform an annual inspection on the subject airplane. A cursory
inspection and examination of the logbooks my turn up some show-stopper,
but nothing substitutes for an annual.

Good Morning John and Richard,

I would second everything john has said and add that I think the D is one of the best
models ever built. There were a ton of small changes made on the 51 C and especially
on the 52 C model. The D is almost the same as the late 1952 C model airplanes with
just a few minor improvements.
I can’t delineate them all, but it was a time when Beech realized that these were not
going to be throwaway airplanes and that they would likely be around for several years.
(I doubt they thought they would be around this long though!) Between 1950 and 1953
many changes were made to the structure which improved serviceability and simplified
maintenance.
Yet the airplane is still relatively light and performs very well!
The one caveat I would add to John’s post is a caution as to who does that pre-purchase
annual. There are still those out there who will do a lick and a look and sign off an
annual inspection. For one thing, NO airplane has to be in perfect or even in good shape
to pass an annual, it just has to meet the minimum airworthiness standards.
Make sure that whoever does it is a knowledgeable Bonanza mechanic and has your
interest at heart and not the sellers!
ENJOY!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990903 112431 msg07832.tex]

433
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Cabin Size
Sun, 10 Jan 1999 20:07:24

In a message dated 1/10/99 6:16:29 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

According to Larry Ball’s Book, The (1970) F33A is merely a 285 HP model
of the (1970) F33. However, beginning with the first deliveries in 1971 the
F33A acquired the cabin length of the V35B. So, I would assume that the
cabin length of the F33 is 19 inches shorter than some F33A’s

Good Evening Ray,

As you undoubtedly already know, length of the cabin makes very little difference in the
basic structure of the airplane. The longer cabin is merely extended further aft in the
fuselage.
The 1947 Bonanza and the last of the model 33s all have the same exterior dimensions
with the exception of spinner and tailcone lengths.
There are of course many little beefups and such to handle the higher weights, but the
basic structure is not changed. The only ones that actually have a bigger fuselage are
the models 36 and 58.
From the pilots point of view, or should I say place of sitting, the roomiest of the series is
the 1947 model 35 and the smallest and most crowded is the pressurized model 58 Baron.
There is a definite advantage to the adjustable seats in accommodating the longer legged
aviators, but that entails a substantial loss of headroom over that available in the early
airplanes equipped with the fixed bench seats. (Not to mention that the lower seating
arrangement makes it a LOT easier to crank the gear down!)
The difference Larry mentions is strictly a matter of how far back in the fuselage the
cabin extends. A marketing decision, not an engineering one.
Happy Skies.
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990110 200724 msg00425.tex]

434
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Carpet
Mon, 5 Jun 2000 16:52:56

In a message dated 6/5/00 2:28:30 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

I’ll bet I can get a lighter weight carpet, too- this one weighs about 5lb!

Good Afternoon Bill,

On the original model 35s, there was no carpet as such. They had carpet like cloth
fastened to the fir plywood pieces. They did a fantastic job on weight control!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000605 165256 msg09140.tex]

435
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Control Locks
Wed, 24 May 2000 22:50:22

Good Evening All,

Just want to put in my two bits!
I like control locks. I particularly like control locks which can be applied and removed
from the cockpit!
Cessna and many other manufacturers have provided locks which went through a fitting
on the control panel. Most were equipped with some sort of a flag. Piper had a lock
on the Super Cubs which fit over the top of the control stick. The DC-4 and the DC-
6/7 had one which was a lever which came up from the floor and locked the controls
somewhere in the bowels of the aircraft. So does the North American AT-6.
The Douglas DC-3, and many other airplanes of the era, had control locks which fit
externally on the control surfaces themselves.
Note that none of the manufacturers of those aircraft made any attempt to block the
airplane from being started and or taxied with the control locks in place. Almost all
had various flag and warning devices attached to the locks which could be seen if one
made any effort to look at all.
Then along came Beechcraft. They designed a very simple and light weight locking
device that was accompanied by a blocking device that would make it difficult, if not
impossible, to start the engine with the lock in place.
To my recollection, Beech was the only manufacturer who made any attempt at all to
make it difficult to start the engine with a control lock in place. Now I hear everyone
berating Beech for providing a product which can be broken by the user and end up not
stopping the operator from starting the engine. It appears that they would be subject
to less abuse if they had merely installed a flag or streamer on the pin as does every
other manufacturer.
The Douglas DC-4 and DC-6 had a lock which was held in the locked position by an
overcenter device. A gentleman named Lucky Jordan attempted a takeoff in a DC-4 on
Runway 22 at LGA with the control lock in place and the airplane crashed off the end
of the runway. The fix was to eliminate the overcenter up lock and provide a tape which
came down from the overhead, over a pin on the console and back to the lock lever to
hold it in the locked position. I know of no case since that time where the control lock
on that aircraft was not properly released before takeoff.
As far as I am concerned, the pin all by itself without a flag or streamer is more than
adequate. I am sure that I am as likely as anyone to make a mistake, but I find it hard to
believe that anyone would get up to a speed above a safe abort speed without attempting
to move either the elevator or the aileron on a Bonanza or a Baron. Certainly a checklist
will include wiggling the controls before takeoff, and I suppose if there is absolutely no

436
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

crosswind, we all may fail to lay in some aileron, but the feel of a locked elevator ought
to be apparent to even the most ham fisted aviator. I know that when I forget to trim
the airplane properly for takeoff, the control column position tells me about it by the
time the throttle is open.
I want no more requirements from anyone that try to tell me how to lock my controls. I
like flags and streamers for myself, but I don’t want to presume to tell anyone else how
to best warn themselves that control locks are installed.
Simple use of the controls to aid in directional control when taxiing will alert anyone to
the existence of a locked or jammed control surface. Not only that, it is good technique
and helps save the brakes and steering mechanisms.
Why don’t we congratulate Beech for at least trying to make something that would warn
the most complacent of us that a lock was in place instead of threatening them with
lawsuits for not making a device which could not be damaged by improper use?
If we feel that the blocking device is necessary to keep us from starting the engine with
the control lock in place, then I guess it is up to us as individuals to see that the locking
and blocking device is in the condition that it was when delivered with the airplane.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000524 225022 msg08611.tex]

437
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Diesel and Gas Turbine Engines

Sun, 23 Apr 2000 20:48:26

Good Evening All,

When I sat down to see what had happened on this forum in the last few days, I was
struck by the interest shown in the diesel engine controversy.
Just some comments on how I perceive the situation. I would be interested in what
others have concluded.
1. Gas turbine fuel has a greater availability world wide than does AVGAS.
2. There is more ”power” available per pound of gas turbine fuel than there is per pound
of AVGAS.
3. There are more pounds of power in a gallon of gas turbine fuel than there is in
AVGAS.
4. The current crop of gas turbines do not provide the specific fuel consumption numbers
that most of us want for operation of our low altitude, relatively long range, style of
aircraft.
5. Today’s gas turbine engines provide the greatest amount of horsepower per pound of
engine weight.
6. Internal combustion piston engines utilizing Diesel ignition have historically provided
the best specific fuel consumption figures.
7. Recent advances in ignition timing control and fuel delivery control have allowed
better specific fuel consumption in lighter weight engines whether the fuel is ignited by
Diesel or spark ignition.
The first three points indicate to me that we should be directing some effort toward
finding a powerplant for our aircraft which will utilize current or future gas turbine fuel.
The last four items direct my thoughts to development of the internal combustion piston
engine as our best current hope for the combination of power and economy that we desire.
I wish I could remember more of what George Braly was showing with his magic ignition
system down at Sun ’n Fun, but it seems there is a potential that his engine could be
run on current turbine fuel, though possibly at a lower peak power output than we are
getting using AVGAS.
It seems to me that the next practical baby step for us to take is along the line of what
George is doing. Learn to control the power pulse so that the engines can be lighter per
pound of horsepower developed.
The next step would seem to be to better control the timing and rate of flow of the fuel
as is being done with current Diesel research.

438
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

I guess my conclusion is that it is not an argument between Diesel ignition and spark
ignition, but rather a quest to better understand the combustion process and the me-
chanics of harnessing that combustion to provide usable power in a power plant that
can use the widely available and more environmentally acceptable gas turbine fuel.
If George can provide his ignition source at a price that I can justify expending on my
aircraft, it will find a home. That has to be the first step. The next is to develop
whatever it is going to take to allow us to use that turbine fuel.
This conclusion is from my non-engineering, strictly operational background. No guar-
antees on any of the above!
What say all of you?
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/20000423 204826 msg06919.tex]

439
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Diesel and Gas Turbine Engines

Tue, 25 Apr 2000 07:53:12

In a message dated 4/24/00 2:54:24 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

2. I would prefer a turbine engine to a piston engine even if the specific

fuel consumption was not as good as the piston engine. However, I am
not holding my breath since no attempt in the last 40 years at a simplified
turbine engine that would even approach our price point has succeeded.
Williams is closing the gap, but the gap is still there.

Good Morning Bob,

How much worse SFC would be acceptable to you?
The fact that almost all commercial operators have switched to turbine power is evidence
that the economics of high fuel consumption can be practical if the benefits are sufficient.
It seems to be a matter of the stage length the flight is to be flown measured in hours
rather than miles.
For short duration flights, the high power more than makes up for the additional burn
required. Let’s assume a three hundred horsepower turbine engine that weighs 150
pounds and a three hundred horsepower piston engine of 450 pounds. Let’s also assume
that the piston engine has an SFC of .4 and the turbine 1.0, that would allow the airframe
carrying the turbine to accommodate 300 more pounds of fuel at the same gross weight.
(This, of course, discounts consideration of weight savings to be gained by designing the
structure to take advantage of the change in weight distribution.)
Cruising at 225 horsepower, the piston would be burning 90 pounds per hour and the
turbine would consume 225 pph. On any flight shorter than three hours and twenty
minutes, the turbine wins! But, if one needs an alternate, things get complicated. The
slower the airplane, the more time is needed to get to an alternate. At turbo jet speeds,
one hour provides a lot more alternates than it does at 160 knots.
Throw in a desire to fly longer stage lengths or to ferry fuel and the piston engine starts
to shine. That is why some folks are considering the use of the Orenda on the old King
Air airframes. It doesn’t have the macho feeling of the turbine, but for long range it is
very efficient. Plus the fuel costs are a LOT lower.
If the fuel costs are the same per pound of fuel, the cost of the fuel will be two and a
half times more for the turbine. When turbines were first introduced to the air carrier
world, gasoline was three and a half times the cost of turbine fuel. That made the costs
competitive provided tankering was not required and if you didn’t need an alternate.
Such price differentials do exist in some parts of the world, but in our markets there
is little price advantage to turbine fuel, certainly not enough to make the turbine fuel
costs lower than the piston.

440
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

The reliability of the turbine has exceeded the reliability we have with pistons and that
is an important factor. I would probably accept a slightly greater cost to gain that
reliability, but I don’t know just how much!
Most of my cross country flights are four to five hours in length with an occasional seven
to eight hour leg thrown in. I suppose if the costs, both acquisition and operational,
were identical, I would opt for the turbine and more fuel stops!
But, if my fuel costs for the turbine were two and a half times higher than for the piston,
I would probably stick with the piston.
Too bad we don’t have a competitively priced turbine available.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000425 075312 msg07020.tex]

441
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Differences Between S35’s and V35’s

Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:46:09

Hi again Skip,
In a message dated 98-03-12 10:05:34 EST, you write:

I am trying to find the differences between the bonanza models built be-
tween the 1964 S model through the 1968 v35 a. Any info or thoughts
would be greatly appreciated !!!!!!

The biggie was the increased gross on the V model and later from 3300 to 3400. An
interesting point is that if you put BDS tip tanks on the S model through the V35B the
gross goes up to 3550 thus an S model gains 250 pounds and the others only 150.
The earlier the airplane, the lighter the airframe. Most all of the additional weight in
later airplanes is from the use of Baron parts for production commonality purposes with
no real effective increase in structural integrity. The best load haulers are the early S
models with tip tanks. Great machines.
The fastest Bonanza I have ever owned was a 1964 S model, N8664Q. If I had known
what an exceptional airplane it was, I never would have let it go. I have never had
another one that performed as well as that airplane. I also had a glider tow hitch
approved on that airplane and it was the most fantastic glider tug you ever saw.
Oh well, we live and learn!!
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980312 104609 msg01219.tex]

442
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

E-Series Engine
Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:19:49

In a message dated 3/15/01 8:58:29 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Hate to burst your bubble, but the E series were running in the Navions
before the Bo, so I sorta doubt they were designed specifically for the
Bonanza.
Rich

Good Morning Rich,

No, the engine was designed specifically for the Bonanza.
Unfortunately, The Bonanza was slow in gestation.
North American requested an engine in the same power range and Continental developed
the E-185-3 wet sump version of the E-165/E-185 for them. Since North American got
their airplane to market sooner than Beech, The -3 version was the first one available,
but the E-165-1 was the start of the program and was rapidly developed into the E-185-1
when Beech decided that 165 horsepower was just not enough for the Bonanza.
Incidentally, did you know that the Bonanza which was first one to fly on December 22,
1945, was powered by the four banger geared Lycoming and not the Continental engine?
It also had the ”round” wing, not the 23000 series used in the production aircraft.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010315 101949 msg05925.tex]

443
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Early Bonanza’s
Fri, 3 Nov 2000 00:03:22

In a message dated 11/2/00 6:34:59 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I am looking at a 1947 BE35 (SN 619). It has a lot of upgrades and seems
to be well maintained. I am curious what you guys know about this year
of Bo’s and what advice you can give me. Also, I am curious about this
speed restriction–if someone can give me the low down on that, I would
appreciate it. As always, thanks for the advice.

Good Evening Andy,

I am sure you will get many opinions that differ from mine, but here it is.
The Straight 35s are wonderful flying airplanes. They are light and very responsive to
the controls. A real pleasure to fly.
The speed restriction may or may not be something that is important, but if it were mine,
I would honor the speed restriction until the procedures required by the appropriate
service bulletin had been complied with.
Regardless of what engine is installed in the airframe, it is not legal to use more than
185 horsepower for takeoff and 165 horsepower for cruise.
The maximum RPM allowed for takeoff is 2300 RPM and the maximum allowed for all
other operations is 2050.
Considering the age of the airframe and the very light construction of the airplane, I
would suggest that the legal limitations be observed. The same goes for the gross weight
limits.
The airplane is approved for a maximum gross TO weight of 2550 pounds. The very
earliest ones had empty weights as low as 1500 to 1600 pounds, however most of them
gained weight in the past fifty some years. It is not at all unusual to find 35s with an
empty weight of 1800 to 1900 pounds. That doesn’t leave much room for people and
fuel.
If you are a very knowledgeable Bonanza aficionado and just want operate a vintage
Bonanza in the same way one might own and operate a vintage automobile, go for it.
They are a lot of fun and great machines, but don’t expect to be able to add equipment
such as big engines and extra fuel tanks to make the airplane do the job of the newer,
stronger and heavier airframes. You can make it look like a late model, but it will still
be the same original aircraft structurally.
If you do decide to buy one, be sure you know what you are getting into!
Happy Skies,

444
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001103 000322 msg15640.tex]

445
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Early Bonanza’s
Fri, 13 Apr 2001 22:50:13

In a message dated 4/12/01 7:40:48 AM Central Daylight Time, thomas.jankowski@profi-

vision.com writes:

Hello all,
I have flown 8 h on my ”new” 1948 35 Bonanza and some questions came
up.
Does any body has manual for the electric beech prop (maybe mechanical
drawing?). I have following problem :
On my last flight, during approach training, my prop stacked in full forward
position. Since no body in Germany is flying electro prop, i have no chance
to compare its function. The electro motor was loose. After fixing I let
my friend look at the blades and i ran the pitch motor to and fro. My
friend was saying the blades are not moving. After inspecting it again I
have found out that the pitch control is not linear, first it moves slow then
fast. Is this intentional, or is the grease old. Any comment on this before
i start taking every thing apart.
The second question: My engine is 225-8 S/N 40092-D 577h after last
overhaul the EGTs are some where near 1400 F but the CHT is 370 to 430
F. Is this normal ? What will be the normal operation for the CHT/EGT
with this engine?

Good Evening Thomas,

It seems that you have had some very good answers to your questions and I have little
to add other than a caution.
You mention that you have a ”new” 1948 35 Bonanza.
Beechcraft built two different models of the 35 in 1948, the ”straight” 35 and the A35.
The A35 was called the new 1949 model, but quite a few of them were built in late 1948.
Serial numbers up to D-1500 were the straight 35 and the A35 started with D-1501.
The engine and propellor combination that you have has been fitted to many model
35 and A35 airframes. The limitations on the operation of the engine are considerably
different depending on which model aircraft that you have.
There were some A35s built during late 1948. Yours may be one of those airplanes,
though the factory did not refer to those as 1948 models. They definitely listed them as
the ”New 1949” model Beechcrafts.
The A35 can use the full power settings of the E225, but the straight 35 cannot.

446
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Regardless of which engine and propellor combination is installed in the straight 35

airframe, it must not be allowed to exceed 185 horsepower. Even that power is only
allowed for one minute during and after takeoff. The rest of the time it is restricted to
165 horsepower. Those are the powers that can be developed by the original E-185-1
engine which was standard in the 1947 and 1948 model 35 Bonanza.
When the E225 is installed in any airplane with a serial number before D-1501 (except
the 35R), the maximum allowable RPM for takeoff is 2300. That is allowed for one
minute during and after takeoff. All other operations must utilize no more than 2050
RPM.
While the engine is being operated at 2300 RPM, the maximum allowable manifold
pressure is 26.5 inches of mercury. When 2050 is used, 27.5 MP is OK.
The first 1500 Bonanzas are wonderful, fast and efficient airplanes. They can provide
many hours of comfort and enjoyment with great safety and efficiency, but they should
be operated in accordance with the speeds and engine power settings for which they
are certificated. The mere installation of a more modern engine and propellor does not
constitute an approval to use higher power settings than have been approved for use in
that early airframe.
If your airplane is serial number D-1501 or higher, the full 225 horsepower can be used,
provided that all of the requirements listed in the type specifications are met, but the
loading and speed restrictions applicable to the A35 must still be observed.
Have fun and enjoy, but keep it legal and safe.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010413 225013 msg07689.tex]

447
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Early History
Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:10:40

Good Evening Lee,

In a message dated 3/23/99 8:35:17 PM Central Standard Time, you wrote:

Think what you want. The real Bonanza started flying in 47..That makes
52 years and still going strong.
Three tails were an after thought.
Deboniers and 36’s are good planes, but they are not Bonanzas.
My opinion and I am sticking to it !!!!

I think you already know that I am on your side!

The first test version of the Bonanza flew on December 22, 1945, just 42 years and 5
days following Orville and Wilbur’s triumph.
I believe it was in 1948 that Beech first flew a derivative aircraft, the Mentor. As the
years went by many derivative aircraft were designed and produced, among them in
addition to the Mentor were the Twin Bonanza, Travel Air, Baron, Debonair and Model
36. Note that the Beechcraft marketing department was able to come up with some
descriptive name for all of the listed variants (and many more) except for the Model 36.
Somehow they had a full blown Brain Block about that time and, in desperation, tried
to steal the name of one of their early offsprings, the granddaddy of the rest, and apply
it retroactively to the Debonair and the Model 36. Now the Debonair and the stretch
Debonair are wonderful airplanes. They generally command a premium price and have
characteristics that may well be improvements over a Bonanza, BUT there is still only
one version of Beechcraft aircraft that deserves the name Bonanza and that is the Model
35.
Like Lee says:
”My opinion and I am sticking to it !!!!”
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990323 221040 msg03248.tex]

448
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Early Model Wing Design

Fri, 19 Nov 1999 19:47:17

In a message dated 11/19/99 9:04:41 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

The 35’s wing design with thin skins and no shear web on the spar is clearly
less robust than the revised wing introduced on the A35, which was the
first model licensed in the utility category at gross.

Good Evening Bob,

I do not feel too offended by your desire to avoid the straight 35, but I would like to
add some defense of the structure.
Without checking any particular source except my memory, I do believe the full web
was not added to the spar until the H model. The skin thickness makes some difference
in overall strength, but the major reason to thicken them up was to make them easier
to work with and to reduce the cosmetic damage from light hail. You could drop a gum
drop on those early skins and cause a dent!
The absolutely lightest weight version was tested to 5.5 Gs before there was any perma-
nent set or deformation. It still hung together!
Beech kept making the wing stronger and stronger, whether it needed that strength
or not, because they were under the false impression that the wings were bending and
breaking due to excessive flight loads encountered during flight with the tail intact.
It was the failure of the tail assembly and the resultant tumble that made the wings
come off and that will happen even with the eight G wing.
The only wing that I know of that separated in flight with the tail intact was the one that
had the center section spar lower member completely broken through. That airplane had
been signed off as inspected per the AD and yet the adjacent materials which needed to
be removed to make the inspection were still in their factory produced condition. The
airplane showed evidence of having been broken for a considerable length of time prior
to the failure. It was overloaded with four large men on board and was buzzing on a hot
summer turbulent day. The pilot executed a sharp pull up at the end of a low pass and
the poor thing finally gave up and separated! But it didn’t fail in the wing structure, it
was the center section! Other 35s with that center section were found to have the same
faulty welds with the lower spar completely cracked through. They were found during
the AD required inspection and no others caused an accident. The thing held together
whether it was supposed to or not! How many other designs have had such a robust
structural backup?
It is nice to have airplanes that are stronger than the FAA requires and the A35 and
later Bonanzas are stronger than the FAA requires.
BUT, so are the straight 35s!

449
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

They aren’t just a little stronger than required, they are a lot stronger. I wonder if the
Cessna 190 or 170 could sustain five and a half Gs without coming apart? The weakest
of the Bonanzas ever built stood up to that test.
I do have reservations about the early airplanes, but it is not due to any doubt that
the basic design is in need of a stronger wing! Any machine that is over fifty years old
has had experiences that might have been detrimental to longevity. There is something
happening to the tail and I hope the problem is solved soon, but I will guarantee that
beefing up the wing won’t help.
If you have one that is in the condition that it was when it came from the factory, I have
complete confidence that it will meet the design requirements that were required at the
time, provided it is flown within the limits that were and are specified for that category
of aircraft.
Had Beech recognized the problem that the tail would have when the wing was suddenly
unloaded, we would likely have much lighter built wings on our current aircraft with a
corresponding increase in the useful load allowed!
There I go with another harangue, but I do want to make sure that the early airplanes
are not criticized for a defect which they don’t have! Too Many Old Wives Tales out
there already!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991119 194717 msg10820.tex]

450
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Flush Rivets
Thu, 19 Feb 1998 12:40:16

Good Afternoon Reinhard,

In a message dated 98-02-19 11:49:22 EST, you write:

Beech must have recognized that later when they flushed a lot of those. Do
I have that right?

Yes and no! I think you are correct when you say flush is better. The earliest Bonanzas
had the highest percentage of flush riveting. As the years went by more and more
universal head rivets were used for manufacturing expediency etc.
It does seem that the very newest airplanes are reverting to the earlier practice of more
flush rivets.
And so it goes!
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980219 124016 msg01017.tex]

451
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Gear Retraction Switch Location

Thu, 25 May 2000 15:25:45

In a message dated 5/25/00 12:45:21 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Yes, but if Bob had been moving very likely the squat switch would not
have saved him! I clean up on the move after landing but I’m close to
stopping this practice.

Good Afternoon John and All,

Considering the number of incidents which appear to have been caused by the pilot
operating the gear retraction mechanism at an inappropriate time, do you suppose there
might be a better place to put the switch?
On the Douglas DC-4, the Landing gear lever and the flap lever were placed along side
each other on the rear of, and in the middle of, the center console. The levers were
of identical construction and action. The left one worked the wheels and the right one
moved the flaps. Predictably, there were a number of instances where a crew member
grabbed the wrong lever and added to the list of undesirable reports.
The DC-6, which was a DC-4 with bigger engines and pressurization, moved the flap
lever over to the right side of the console and rotated it ninety degrees. The number of
inadvertent gear retractions dropped significantly.
When the passenger jets came upon the scene, almost all of them moved the gear re-
traction lever up on to the instrument panel to the right of the center panel and just to
the left of the copilot’s position.
On most aircraft, there are no other levers or switches anywhere near the gear lever that
ever need to be operated.
Inadvertent gear retractions have been reduced to an insignificant number.
The DC-4 was in production when the first Bonanza was test hopped. The first DC-6
was delivered at about the same time as the first Bonanza.
There has been a lot of human factors engineering improvement since 1947 and yet we
still have our landing gear switch in a relatively unhandy location and in an area of the
aircraft where many other switch and lever devices are located.
On the DC-6, and on lot’s of other aircraft which utilize a hydraulic mechanism to fold
away the rollers, it is not easy to relocate the actuating device.
With an electrical system, such as we enjoy, it is relatively simple to relocate a switch.
That is precisely what Beech did at the request of Lufthansa when they built all of the
Debbies which were used as pilot trainers at Goodyear Arizona.

452
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

The switch is located at the upper right hand corner of the otherwise stock late Bonanza
style center panel.
They did it primarily so that the gear switch is in a position similar to all of the airplanes
which the students were soon to be operating, but I have been told that they have had
very few inadvertent gear retractions.
When I first saw the installation, I asked Beech if they had gone through any FAA
approval. I was told that since they were a manufacturer of the aircraft, no additional
approval was required.
I don’t know anything at all about manufacturers certification requirements or privileges,
but I do know that my next panel modification will include a relocation of the landing
gear actuation switch from it’s present subpanel location to a position of prominence in
the upper right hand corner of my center instrument panel!
I think that it should be OK to do so under the auspices of a minor alteration, but I
will probably put it through on a 337 just to see what happens.
Anyone else think the idea has merit?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000525 152545 msg08651.tex]

453
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Magnesium Ruddervators
Wed, 20 May 1998 13:43:53

Good Afternoon Eric Poole,

In a message dated 98-05-20 12:03:36 EDT, you write:

For example, does anyone know what the ruddervator control surface as-
semblies weigh now, and how much more they would weigh if aluminum?
With that I can at least do a balance and CG check and see how much of
an effect the extra weight would have.

Interesting that you should bring this up. I have been considering a little evaluation of
the weight of the ruddervators with magnesium skins but for a slightly different reason.
I would like to see if a set could not be built using the current leading edge and hinge
assembly along with aluminim ribs and drag braces covered by one of the new light
weight fabrics.
If a significant weight advantage could be obtained, I would think it might help the
current early airplane situation. I have been told that some of the early preproduction
airplanes had such surfaces but have never verified that with an authoritative source.
My first Bonanza, serial number D10, had fabric covered ailerons and I was told that it
had come from the factory with fabric covered flaps. Can’t verify that.
I really don’t think I would want to do anything that would add more total weight to
the ruddervator. It appears that extra weight as well as unbalanced surfaces has been
affecting the flutter problem.
That wouldn’t help Erics CG problem though!
I know a lot of Bonanza people wouldn’t like fabric on their airplanes but I can tell
you from experience that fabric will stand up to hail that would damage the skin on the
Bonanzas and it has been used on some very high speed aircraft. The Douglas DC-7 had
a fabric covered rudder and some of the early jet fighters had fabric covered surfaces.
Who knows, it might work!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980520 134353 msg02712.tex]

454
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Models with Canted Engine

Fri, 22 Jan 1999 15:09:26

In a message dated 1/22/99 12:49:00 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob, which models and/or engines are canted and why is this?

Good Afternoon John,

On the V-tails, I believe the first one with a crooked engine was the 1964 S model. Don’t
know about those ones with that funny looking inverted T tail, but I imagine it was
about the same time.
It was done to aid in holding the thing straight on take off, it reduces the amount of
rudder pressure needed markedly with a relatively small deterioration in top speed.
It’s easy to tell the airplanes that either had the crooked engine to start with or have
been converted later. They are the ones that came from the factory with no afterbody
on the nose bugeyes behind the spinner. They would have had to make a new one to fit
the canted machine so they just eliminated the afterbody. Cheaper and easier.
If you will look at the early ones with factory canted engines, you will note what looks
like a patch on the top of the bugeye on each side (on the inside that is). That is where
they spliced in the new section on the bugeyes that were already in stock when the
change was made.
At the time, Beech claimed that the crooked thrust line changed the applied thrust so
little that the difference in speed was negligible. Could be!
I have spoken to speed mod builders who claim that the statement is true as far as it
goes. The changed angle of thrust doesn’t make much difference, but who were of the
opinion that the canted engine creates an airflow around the fuselage that requires a
retrimming of the tail surfaces to maintain straight flight. Supposedly this creates drag
that makes the airplane five to seven mph slower than it would have been had the 520
been put in straight.
With the engine in straight, left crosswinds are a little hard to handle with the higher
powered airplanes. I had a straight 35 back in the late fifties equipped with an engine
that was developing around 235 to 240 HP. I found that at light weights, it was necessary
to back off on the power or switch around to a right crosswind to keep from running out
of rudder and I was using adverse aileron steering to maximum effect.
I don’t believe anyone has an approval to put the 520 or the 550 in an earlier airframe
without a power restriction for takeoff down to the power the airplane was originally
approved with or canting the engine.
Most folks opt for the crooked engine mounts and full available power.
If I were a doctor instead of a retired airline pilot, I would love to take a P model and

455
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

have a 550 installed straight ahead just to see what it would do!
I suppose financially it would not be a wise decision, but even if it would be only three
of four mph faster, I could live with a partial power takeoff restriction! If it really picked
up seven mph I would be in heaven.
I guess I will never find out unless somebody tries it and lets me know.
Happy Skies
Old Unemployed Bob
[ARTICLES/19990122 150926 msg00998.tex]

456
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Mooney vs. Bonanza

Wed, 4 Oct 2000 10:12:51

In a message dated 10/4/00 12:05:20 AM Central Daylight Time, Ernie [email protected]

writes:

He picked the Mooney Ovation II, while his wife favors the A-36

Good Morning Ernie,

Interesting information!
While I agree that the burn numbers seem quite high for the model 36, it really isn’t
kosher to compare based on percentage powers.
The Mooney uses a derated version of the 550. I am not aware whether the Viking does
or not.
In any case, if the rated power of the Mooney is 280 and the 36 is 300, seventy-five
percent of each would be 210 and 225 respectively.
As George has so ably pointed out, percentage power figures really don’t mean much.
They are so dependent on leaning and timing factors that we should probably never use
them in any comparison unless we know all of the details of operation used to arrive at
the so called ’percentage of power.’
The only test that I am comfortable with when comparing performance figures between
two airplanes is how much fuel each aircraft burns when flown for an extended period
side by side. Optimally, they should be flown in formation close enough that all airmass
factors affecting one will also affect the other.
The operators should be manipulating the engine controls in a manner agreed to before
the test. That planned method would vary depending on whether there was a contest
or whether the participants were merely trying to establish an equivalent database for
both aircraft.
For simple runs between you and me, I would suggest that we would each run somewhere
around 20 to 40 degrees F lean of peak EGT at a RPM and manifold pressure that
would be comfortable for the individual airplane. Obviously, there are still a large
number of variables left unaccounted for, but converting the GPH to horsepower via
some reasonable method using an estimated Specific Fuel Consumption figure (the one
used by George is reasonable, but there are others) would supply a fairly accurate
horsepower figure for the subject comparison flight.
If I were a new aviator and wanted to buy a brand new single engine airplane to carry
my wife and I around the country, I would probably opt for the Mooney myself. The
Mooney is still smaller than the 36 and doesn’t have a very good useful load, but for
two folks and baggage, it is adequate
Given my irrational love affair with the Bonanza, I would have a hard time passing up

457
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

the new 36, but comparing the new model 36 with your model 36, I don’t think I could
bring myself to buy a new one!
Beech, and then Raytheon, have messed up that airplane by adding so much weight that
I now find the 36 to be almost repugnant.
I suppose if I wasn’t aware of how great a loadhauler one like yours is, I wouldn’t be so
disappointed in the new ones! If I were that hypothetical new aviator, I might opt for
the 36 based on the larger interior and more sophisticated structure it has compared to
the Mooney.
I probably should have read the article you quote before I make such an extensive
comment, I will try to do better next time.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001004 101251 msg14419.tex]

458
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Nose Bowl
Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:08:23

In a message dated 3/15/01 8:32:10 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Walter Beech designed an amazing plane, but he sure dropped the ball on
that DAMN nose bowl. That is the stupidest hairbrained arrangement for
engine removal/installation!

Good Morning Scott,

I don’t think I can agree with your assessment of the Bonanza engine mount and cowling
structure.
As I am sure you are aware, Beech was not an engineer and he designed nothing. What
he did is direct his engineers to come up with a light weight design that could be built
in large numbers economically.
Unfortunately, the large numbers never developed so the design was never able to be
built economically, but they did a fantastic job of making it light!
The integrated cowling, engine mount, nose gear support and fuselage structure on The
Bonanza is still lighter than any comparable unit on any other aircraft.
I hate working on it and cuss the lack of accessibility regularly, but it is things like that
which make the Bonanza perform as well as it does on relatively low power.
Had you used a Lear Romec fuel pump on your engine, it could have been installed with
the pump installed. I think it is the Thompson that sometimes causes a problem.
We users have changed a lot of things on the Bonanza since Walter’s boys designed the
aircraft.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010315 100823 msg05924.tex]

459
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

O-470/IO-470 Powered Bonanza’s

Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:04:08

In a message dated 97-11-16 16:28:07 EST, you write:

When did the IO-470s start and what were the differences between the L’s,
C’s, N’s etc.?

The J35 (1958) was the first one with a a fuel injected IO470. The 1957 model, the
H35, had an O470 with a PS5C injection carburetor and an AMC (automatic mixture
control) unit. The IO470 was used through the P model and then the 1964 S35 started
the IO520s. There was no ”L35”, the C35 was built in1951 and 52. It had the ”E” series
engine rated at 205 HP for take off in 1952. Nice airplane, especially trhe 1952 one. The
N35 was very similar to the ’”P” I guess you best check out Larry Balls book, it has all
that in it. As someone else has said, you absolutely must join the ABS and obtain the
CD with all of the past newsletters on it. ”Everything you ever wanted to know but
were afraid to ask” is contained therein!
The earlier the airplane the lighter they are and the nicer they fly. The newer the airplane
the heavier they are. Lower maintenance and higher payloads might be anticipated on
the later models. I would at least call Lee Larsen and find out what he would charge to
find you an airplane. You would learn a heap and it would undoubtedly be money well
spent.
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19971116 170408 msg02400.tex]

460
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Older Bonanza’s and Bendix PS5C Carb

Tue, 20 May 1997 17:37:50

Hey, as long as we’re talking older Bonanzas, lets cover the whole bunch. I’ve owned
three straight 35s and they were without any doubt the best flying ones I’ve ever owned.
They are much lighter and really do well on the small engine. ( The engine isn’t really
small, it just isn’t wound very tight) the only rub is that they take a lot of tender loving
care. That extra beef that Ralph talks about in later airplanes is mainly in areas that
have commonality with the Baron or parts that are made heavier for easier maintenance.
There really isn’t much substantial increase in the strength required for the Bonanza
mission. Incidentally, the H was the first airplane that has the spar which requires the
spar inspection each 500 hours. The A model through the G have NO problems with
the spar at all. Only the straight 35’s and the later ones need repetitive spar inspec-
tions! Personally, I think the 1952 C model has the best combination of gross weight,
horsepower, servicibility and such of the early units. (There were several maintainability
improvements on the 1952 C over the 1951 C) The G has all those good characteristics
and yet has very little of the Baron commonality weight increase.
As to the PS5C carb on the H, When the AMC unit works it is great. Unfortunately
most people never bothered to learn much about it. Also the parts for it are getting
very expensive. I always felt the engines had much better fuel /air distribution with the
PS5C on the ”E” engine than we have with the fuel injection (pre-GAMIjectors.) on the
”O” series. I always ran my ”E” engines on the lean side of best power and it worked
great.
Don’t be afraid of the early airplanes but remember that you will probably have difficulty
finding a really clean one and if you do ,it will be WORTH a LOT of money.
I think I have rambled on long enough.
Bye
[Added Wed, 21 May 1997 09:24:40]
I forgot to comment on the D model. It is almost identical to the C and I agree that it
is every bit as good as the C. The C just came first and is usually cheaper to purchase.
The main point I wanted to make is that the 52 C is the first airplane with all the
goodies as far as easy maintenance is concerned. The 51 C flies and handles just as well
but there were some small maintenance oriented items improved on the 52.
[ARTICLES/19970520 173750 msg00908.tex]

461
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Primary Instrunction in a Bonanza

Thu, 1 Oct 1998 13:14:19

Good Morning Richard Taylor,

In a message dated 10/1/98 11:58:30 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

I’m looking for advice about whether or not it is a crazy goal for me to
purchase, checkout in and fly a 1950’s bonanza with my level of experience.

It is a very reasonable thing to do. I have taught several students from scratch in the
Bonanza, no problems at all.
The basic flying is easier than the 172, it’s just a little more procedurally challenging!
Insurance may be something of a problem, perhaps Tom Turner will comment.
Gotta run now, talk more later.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981001 131419 msg05729.tex]

462
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Questions Regarding M35 to P35

Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:09:26

In a message dated 9/30/00 9:02:18 AM Central Daylight Time, Jeff [email protected]

writes:

Getting more excited every day about the prospect of actually owning and
flying a Bonanza, I would like to ask for the assistance of the list members
in a couple of questions to help me evaluate what I am looking at..
Good Morning Jeff,
There are many on this list who are much more qualified than I to answer
your questions, but I will throw in my two bits as a starter.

1. What amount of time on a Bonanza airframe is too much?

Your comment concerning the maintenance an individual airplane has re-

ceived is very astute. There are a lot of things that start needing serious
attention somewhere around two thousand hours. If the small things have
been regularly picked up and attended to, the Beechcraft recommended
times of inspection and overhaul complied with and the aircraft regularly
flown and licensed, a high time airframe can be an excellent choice. But
the odds of finding a good one get tougher as the time goes up. Low time is
better, especially one under two thousand hours. Even if the maintenance
has not been stellar, not too many things go wrong in less than two thou-
sand hours. Unfortunately, any airplane of the age group you are looking
at that has less than two thousand hours is likely to have sat a lot and
possibly been neglected along the way. Corrosion becomes a major con-
sideration. Bathtub fittings can be bad, filiform (sp?) corrosion could be
present, etc. If you can find that proverbial airplane that has been owned
by a little old lady in the Arizona high country, has been kept in a heated
air-conditioned hangar and flown only to church on Sunday, that would be
the perfect one to have.

2. Issues specific to the M35-P35 series that should be given

more attention when looking the airplane over (prior to a pre-
purchase inspection)?

I know of nothing specific to those models.

3. Reasons to prefer one of the models over one of the others

(outside of the 3rd window and the horsepower issues)?

The N or later which have the optional forty gallons on a side would be a
major consideration for me. The third window (any style of third window!)
can be added to any Bonanza if you want them bad enough. As to horse-
power, a later 470, 520 or 550 can be mounted in any of those airframes

463
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

and it will likely be lighter than the engine it replaces. There are, to my
knowledge, NO STCs to install larger fuel tanks in the wing leading edges
of any of the Bonanzas.

4. Would anyone like to make any recommendations of a good

shop for a pre-purchase inspection in the Delaware/Virginia
area?

I don’t have any personal knowledge and I don’t know the gentleman at all,
but Dan Towery of Cheswald, Delaware specializes in Bonanzas and has
been recommended by many others over the years. Cheswald is a suburb
of Dover. The airport there is Delaware Airpark, 33N.

I know this is a lot to ask of you, but your help will be most
appreciated.

Not a ’lot to ask’ at all, we want to welcome you to Bonanza ownership

and hope that your experience will be a positive one.
Remember, engine, paint, glass, radios and instrument panels can be changed
relatively easily. But, if you buy a corroded and worn out airframe, the
expense and practicality of repair can be atrocious.
Buy the absolutely best airframe you can afford and forget the little things
like engine, interior, radios and paint!
You will be happier in the long run.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/20000930 110926 msg14252.tex]

464
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Rear Seat Structural Member

Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:06:03

Good Afternoon Ralph,

In a message dated 98-08-19 13:49:21 EDT, you write:

I have heard that the rear seat is a structural member and

can not be removed.

It depends on the model. On the straight 35s (approximately the first

fifteen hundred airplanes) there is a tube that runs from wall to wall forming
part of the rear seat. When the rear seat was removed for cargo or to
facilitate carrying a stretcher patient, there was an STC for installing the
tube without the seat. The tube is there to provide stiffness and hold the
sides of the airplane from collapsing in. When removing the rear seat for
maintenance, it is accepted procedure to fit a suitably padded jack between
the side walls and force them out slightly to facilitate the removal. Very
definitely a structural member. If your rear seat does not bolt directly to
the side wall, it is not a structural member and the seats can be safely and
legally removed. Just be sure to make an appropriate entry in the ships
record.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980819 140603 msg04545.tex]

465
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Redesign the Entire Cockpit?

Thu, 25 May 2000 20:37:12

In a message dated 5/25/00 5:32:26 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Which brings up another point. I would like ideally to have

the trim wheel located between the seats and while we’re at
it why not put the flap switch there too. Problem solved this
way as well. The trim wheel is awkward to reach were it is
and would be a snap between the seats.

Well John,
If we are going to redesign the entire cockpit, I would have a few druthers
myself!
I like a stick better than a control wheel and that would free up the entire
panel for radios and instruments that could be placed just anywhere!
I think the trim wheel is in a very nice spot right now, but the center
location would be acceptable. The cabling and such should be lighter and
simpler where it is now. As to the flaps, for an airplane the size of the
Bonanza, I would prefer manual flaps. I always thought Cessnas nice big
flap lever on the 180 and 185 was just about perfect. I never did understand
why they went to electric flaps on their later machines. As long as we
are stuck with the electric flaps, having the switch close to the cowl flap
actuator fits nicely for my after landing clean up list.
Now what are we going to replace that old Continental with?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000525 203712 msg08674.tex]

466
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Ruddervator Bob Weights

Sat, 26 Feb 2000 01:13:32

In a message dated 2/25/00 11:59:02 PM Central Standard Time, eso-

[email protected] writes:

bob-weights were added starting with the D35 to ”harmonize”

stick forces, although some claim that it took away the ”sin-
fully light” handling of the earlier models.

Good Evening Paul,

Beech was still in their denial mode back then. The fact that the wings
were being shed was blamed on ham handed aviators and PIO. Vance Breese
wrote about the tail coming off and causing the tumbling which the tore off
the wings, but his was a lone voice in the wilderness. It took almost twenty
years for the rest of the industry to come around to his way of thinking.
Meanwhile they made the airplane less and less delightful to fly by adding
those devices to take the control away from the aviator!
Such is life!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000226 011332 msg03658.tex]

467
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Single vs. Twin

Mon, 24 Apr 2000 09:50:26

Good Morning All,

The twin question continues to arise and the answer seems to be ”it de-
pends.”
If the extra engine makes you feel good, go for it!
Is it safer? That very definitely depends on how the twin is operated.
The mere existence of the extra engine does not provide the capability of
continued safe flight following an engine failure any more than the failure
of the one and only engine on a single engine airplane precludes continued
safe flight.
The airlines gain reasonable safety of flight with twin engine aircraft by
observing rules considering control capability and engine out performance
following the failure of a critical engine.
That is not just the balanced field length concept, but it includes the
evaluation of continued flight over the terrain enroute or the consideration
of a drift down alternate in the event that the twin engine machine is being
flown over terrain that is above the aircraft’s single engine ceiling.
When the DC-3 was King, there had to be an alternate with suitable
weather in every valley along the mountainous routes into which the aircraft
could descend in the event of an engine failure. Many of those alternate
airports are no longer available now that the gas turbine airplanes are used
which have much higher single engine ceilings.
If you are flying an airplane with a single engine ceiling of five thousand
feet at your present weight, don’t go west of Denver if you want multiengine
safety.
As to flying a single engine airplane, if you want the capability of safe
continued flight after an engine failure don’t ever takeoff or fly over any
terrain that would not be suitable for a glide down to a safe landing.
Many years ago, I checked what it would take to fly a Beechcraft Bonanza
from Chicago to St. Louis using air carrier style ”drift down” techniques
to provide the capability of landing on a lighted hard surface runway in the
event of an engine failure.
The glide ratio that I used was for an early airplane with the electric prop
which has a much better glide ratio than the current hydraulic prop.
I found that one could takeoff from ORD, fly a basically circular pattern
over the airport so as to attain enough altitude to either land back at ORD

468
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

or go to the next lighted airport and so on all the way to Lambert Field by
flying at a cruise altitude of seven thousand feet. It would be necessary to
work out an approach procedure that would allow the aircraft to execute
an approach where the airplane would always be within gliding distance of
the airport during the descent.
Using such a technique, the Bonanza had the same level of engine out
capability as the DC-3 had flying west of Denver.
Like I said. It all depends.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000424 095026 msg06967.tex]

469
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Single vs. Twin - Cessna Skymaster

Mon, 24 Apr 2000 12:45:26

In a message dated 4/24/00 10:55:25 AM Central Daylight Time, wh-

[email protected] writes:

He tells me that the thing can really bite you if you lose the
front engine ( I believe it is the front but I could have this
backwards) on departure.

Good Morning Howard,

Most push-pull devotees recommend opening the rear throttle first, at least
far enough to assure that it is running. Not a few pilots have had the rear
engine quit after they had performed all of the engine checks. Sometimes
just as they were cleared for takeoff. The takeoff was then made with
just the front engine. This happened to one of my pilots when we were
operating the FBO. He had picked up the airplane at Palwaukee airport to
bring it to our place for some radio work. Sometime after he had completed
the runup and before he took off, the rear engine stopped. He thought the
takeoff was a little sluggish, but since it was the first time he had ever flown
a Skymaster, he wasn’t too concerned. He didn’t discover that it was not
running until he leveled off at cruise and began to adjust the power. The
owner had stuck around to watch the takeoff of his little jewel and later
called our shop to say how happy he was that our pilot had elected to try a
takeoff without the rear engine as he had been wanting to try that himself
but had never built up the guts!
Just an aside on the efficiency of the push pull arrangement.
The NACA (Predecessor to NASA) in the thirties ran some tests on the
efficiency of that arrangement. They tested engines that were mounted on
the same axis as each other, whereas the Cessna engines are mounted with
the rear one slightly higher than the front. Comparisons may not directly
correlate.
NACA used the latest cowlings which they had developed for both tractor
and pusher installations on the appropriate engine. Their conclusion was
that the interference between the airflow from the front engine and the
rear was such that the best one could get from the combination was about
ninety percent of the thrust that you could get if the engines were mounted
side by side or on the wings.
That brings up an interesting anomaly. If you lose one of the engines,
the other one becomes more efficient. You only lose forty percent of the
possible thrust rather than the fifty percent that might have been thought.
On the Cessna, the rear engine performs better with the front one feathered

470
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

than the other way around. I have been told that this is due to very high
drag around the rear of the fuselage with the rear engine feathered. It
seems that when the rear engine is the one running, the propellor helps pull
the airflow into a more laminar flow around the rather abruptly changing
structure and thereby reduces the drag. This effect combined with the
commonly observed phenomenon of pusher propellors being slightly more
efficient than tractors makes the Cessna perform quite a bit better on the
rear than on the front.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000424 124526 msg06984.tex]

471
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Straight Tail vs. V-Tail

Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:16:00

In a message dated 11/15/99 1:24:04 PM Central Standard Time, mark-

[email protected] writes:

When I was shopping for my 33/35, I looked at both and would

have bought either. I was willing to pay a small premium to
get the straight-tail though because I believed it to be a better
tail. My thinking would be exactly the same if I returned to
the market today.
- Mark (F33A)

Good Afternoon Mark,

All of what you state is true as I see it, BUT, just as beauty is in the eye
of the beholder, better is as to what the beholder wants!
If the V tail is three or four MPH faster than the straight tail, it would be
my choice.
Is it faster? I am sure we can get all sorts of anecdotal references that will
show it to be faster and an equal number that show it the same or slower.
When Beech first decided to use the V-tail, they tested it on a modified
AT-10. From that information they estimated that the increase in speed
for a 165 horsepower Bonanza would be seven mph. That is likely loaded
with a little bit of sales hyperbole.
When the Debbie was first introduced, I was involved with a Beech dealer-
ship and we tried to make what unscientific comparisons we could. Since
there weren’t any airplanes that had exactly the same engine, direct com-
parisons were not possible. We did try to set up at equivalent horsepower’s
and felt that there was somewhere around 5 mph in favor of the V-tail. We
did note, however, that some of the V-tails were slower than some of the
Debbies. We started doing a fair amount of comparisons with the whole
bunch and came to the conclusion that some of the airplanes were just plain
fast and others were just plain slow!
I believe there is as much as ten knots difference between two apparently
identical airplanes, but most are within three or four knots of each other. I
don’t know why this is so, but I do know that some just look like they are
little more carefully assembled and those tend to be the fast ones, straight
tail or V-tail.
Over the years I have owned fast ones and slow ones, model 33s, 36s and
35s.

472
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

It is my totally subjective and biased opinion that the V tail is five mph
faster than a comparable 33 and about seven mph faster than a comparable
36!
There is another factor that comes into play when you are comparing V-tail
accident statistics with other aircraft, be they Beech or others.
The aggressive pusher type person will buy the Bonanza because it is, or
should be, or is believed to be, the fastest. The conservative buyer might
well buy a Navion because it is slower and perceived to be safer.
When the Debbie first came out, we had a lot of customers buy them who
stated that they had always admired the Bonanza, but they were afraid
of the V-tail. Those conservative types just didn’t fly their airplanes as
aggressively as did the type A folks!
I think the very nature of the customer had a lot to do with the difference
in the accident statistics.
Any flying machine is a compromise between maximum performance and
maximum strength. FAA standards for certification set minimum stan-
dards to assure that all flying machines meet the acceptable level of risk
that we have said we would be happy with. The entire Bonanza line exceeds
those requirements, some exceed them by more than others!
I am not convinced that the latest straight tails are any stronger than the
latest V-tails with the cuffs, but I am convinced that the more conservative
pilot will tend to buy the straight tail and the more aggressive will opt for
the V-tail.
Many of the early V-tails that have had extensive modification are evidenc-
ing problems that are not completely understood at this time. Suffice it
to say that while I consider them ”safe” to fly, I am an aggressive aviator
and like the performance of the early light weight airplanes. I would not,
however, fly them any faster than they are currently certificated to fly, nor
at weights or horsepower’s above those certificated to be used.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991115 151600 msg10604.tex]

473
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Structural Strength
Sat, 24 Jun 2000 13:26:37

In a message dated 6/24/00 11:20:10 AM Central Daylight Time, jts-

[email protected] writes:

This reminds me ... in another thread you and later Alan

made the statement that the Bonanza is structurally more
sturdy in turbulence than a commercial airliner. You also
said one is better off in wind shear with the piston Bonanza
than a jet. I can see that ... but the structural integrity? Tell
me more about that so I can brag accordingly. g

Good Morning John,

I don’t think I made that statement in exactly that context, especially as to
a Bonanza being better in windshear than a jet. If I did, I must apologize
as I am not qualified to make such a statement and don’t believe it myself.
I don’t think the Bonanza is better than a 747 in a windshear. On another
point, I try very carefully to describe an airplane by it’s aerodynamic ca-
pabilities, not by the type of engine it uses. Wing loading is much more
important in this area of discussion.
Hopefully one of the many qualified engineers on the forum will supply a
more correct answer than I am able to give. But, here is my perception.
The FARs do not require as much strength, as measured by G load, for the
airliners as they do for the GA aircraft.
Most of the Bonanzas are built to the even stronger requirements of the
utility category and not just the required normal category. That makes
them stronger than the airliners as far as how many Gs they are required to
with stand. However, the Bonanzas and the modern airliners will generally
stand a lot more force than is required by the regulations.
We know that a 747SP will handle 5 Gs because that is what the Chinese
pulled while recovering from an upset over the Pacific. I believe it was
Northwest that pulled 4Gs in 727 while recovering from an upset that
incurred when the crew forgot to turn on the pitot heat.
I would prefer to be in a 747 while encountering heavy weather than to be
in my Bonanza. The higher wing loading means that any individual gust
will not displace it as far and it will therefore not be subjected to as high
a G load.
However, I would sooner do a loop in the Bonanza than in the 747. When
it comes to raw Gs, the Bonanza is probably stronger! At least, it has to
meet tougher G force requirements to be certified.

474
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

When penetrating turbulence, there is no beating a high wing loading!!

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000624 132637 msg10057.tex]

475
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

The Floor
Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:23:45

In a message dated 6/5/00 10:31:27 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

The floor is made from cheap unpainted 1/4” plywood, and

badly rotted out.

Good Afternoon Bill,

Don’t be so hard on Beechcraft! The floor is made from a very light weight
fir plywood, but it wasn’t necessarily cheap! One of reasons the Bonanza
turned out as good as it did, was due to the extreme pressure put on the
designers to make everything as light as possible.
That is the reason there is the one piece combination fuel selector, fuel
pump and fuel sump/drain unit.
That type engineering was pressed on all of the departments at Beechcraft.
The lightweight fir plywood was used to save weight. It isn’t very strong
and it doesn’t feel nice when you work with it, but it is light and it has done
the job! There are a lot of fifty year old airplanes that still have those flimsy
floor boards installed. I have replaced them with nice high grade aircraft
plywood on occasion, but I always feel guilty for adding that weight. A
few ounces here and a few ounces there don’t seem all that important, but
every ounce we carry that is not absolutely required is not only an ounce
wasted, but likely several ounces as it takes more structure and power to
carry that extra ounce!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000605 142345 msg09130.tex]

476
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

The Secret - Weight

Fri, 4 Aug 2000 10:34:24

In a message dated 8/4/00 4:15:05 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

That’s certainly one thing among many that the Bonanzas

have all over the Commanders and most other makes ... all
the cool STC’d things we can spend money on to customize
our rides ;-).

Good Morning Eric,

The ”real” secret to Bonanza performance was the effort put out by the
original designers to keep the weight down.
Unfortunately, once Walter died, that effort was lost and the airplanes have
gained weight unmercifully. Even so, the Bonanza still ends up being the
lightest airplane and the best performer in most comparisons of equivalent
aircraft.
Just like you can’t beat cubic inches in a quest for horsepower, you can’t
beat light weight for performance.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000804 103424 msg11729.tex]

477
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

V-tail AD’s
Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:38:55

In a message dated 11/16/99 6:44:18 AM Central Standard Time, phae-

[email protected] writes:

I thought the airspeed AD was only if you hadn’t done the

tail mod. Is there some airspeed AD even if you *have* done
the mod? (We are talking about 35A model, right?)

Good Morning Ms Hise,

Beech Aircraft Corporation built the original V-tail in the 1940s, they
were given the name Bonanza. The model number of the first 1500 was the
Beechcraft model 35, later referred to as the ’plain’ 35 by the factory and
the ’straight’ 35 by most of the rest of the industry. The next iterations
(sometimes yearly, but not always) were the model A35, then B35 and so
on through the model V35. When they reached that magic number, it was
decided by the powers that be that the rest of the Bonanzas built would
retain the V35 designation, but further changes would be designated by
adding a following letter. We thus have the V35A and the V35B.
There were a few straight 35s which had an upgrade to a configuration
close to the A35. Those were designated the 35R.
The first speed restricting AD applied to the series concerned the later
airplanes, which had a longer leading edge surface. It extended further
forward of the spar and added surface area to the stabilizer. This area
was not supported and it was found that when flown outside of the design
envelope, failure could occur. As others have mentioned, it appears that
the extension should have had a forward spar or other reinforcement from
the beginning, but it is amazing how good we all are with hindsight.
Once the ”cuff” was added to those aircraft the speed restriction was lifted.
The airplanes that are currently operating under an AD imposed speed
restriction are the 35, A35, B35 and 35R aircraft. There have been diffi-
culties with flutter and vibration that are not yet completely understood.
Hopefully a cause will be determined and a fix devised.
It must be noted in the defense of our senior designers, that the Bonanza
was in the design stage some forty years after the Wright brothers first
flight. The first prototype flew just forty-two years and five days after
Orville’s first solo!
I would hope that there has been some increase in aeronautical engineering
knowledge in the ensuing fifty-four years.
Incidentally, there was an engineer named Vance Breese who started talking

478
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

about a structural problem with the V-tail as used on the Bonanza in the
early 1950s. As I remember, he liked the basic design, but felt that the
testing used did not fully explore the loads that could be applied under
unusual conditions. It appears that he was on the right track.
Does that answer your question!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991116 083855 msg10648.tex]

479
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

V-tail Safety
Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:07:43

In a message dated 11/17/99 7:00:46 PM Central Standard Time, dia-

[email protected] writes:

The 1986 DOT report vol. 2 Has the individual analysis of

the in flight breakups. In most of the cases the cause was
structural failure wing. I believe Norm Colvin remarked in the
ABS magazine about the wings failing first. Cheers Carmine
Pecoraro

Good Evening Carmine,

It is my recollection that Beech really felt the wing was failing first for
many years.
I believe that it was an H model that shed it’s wings during a race some-
where in the southwest. The pilot had been asking friends questions as to
how far above the redline he could safely go in the down hill portion of
the race! There were high winds and lot’s of turbulence in the area where
the wings came off. Beech analysis mentioned that there was evidence of
the wings bending up and down several times before separation occurred.
I believe Beech said that the structure was good for somewhere around
eight ”G”s. The theory was that the pilot had far exceeded the redline in
turbulent air during the descent. Flight through updrafts and downdrafts
made things worse and even those eight G wings finally gave up.
Somewhere around 1952 or 53, Vance Breese came up with the thought
that it was the tail that was failing first and that the airplane then would
tumble end over end as did the Aircobra of WW II. That made for very
heavy alternating forces applied in what would appear to be an up and
down motion before the wings failed.
He further postulated that most of the airplanes that shed wings did so after
the pilot had loaded up the wing quite highly. The pilot would suddenly
realize what was happening and either shove forward or suddenly release
the control column to reduce the wing loading. That action produced a
sudden load on the stabilizers which exceeded the design limit. They then
failed, causing the tumbling which led to wing separation.
An aft CG made things worse!
I think it was after this H model shed it’s wings that more and more folks
started to agree with Vance and I believe the ’tail first’ theory is the one
accepted by most today.
I remember reading lots of ”official” reports in those days which spoke of

480
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

wing failure following flight into turbulent conditions. They all mentioned
that the failure showed evidence of several reverses of force before failure
occurred. I don’t think Beech was trying to hide anything. Even with those
violent conditions, had the forces been loaded and/or unloaded smoothly,
the design limits of the tail would not have been exceeded. Vance felt that
it was the panic style of effort to unload that was causing the failure.
I think we all wish that Beech had made them a little stronger to start
with, but it is a lot easier to see that now than it was forty years ago! I am
glad my airplane has the cuffs. It was a good idea, but the airplane was
safe without them, provided it was flown within the design parameters. It
is even better with them!
It was a good example of the fact that we must first determine what the
problem is before we can devise a fix. Beech kept making the wings stronger
and stronger because they thought that was the problem. Once everyone
accepted the theory of the tail failing first, the problem seems to have been
solved.
It is my hope that we will be able to determine soon what is causing the
trouble with flutter that has surfaced recently. It is the same deal. Once
a problem is recognized, it ceases to be a problem. But, if we keep trying
to apply a fix to a problem that doesn’t exist, we get nowhere and don’t
accomplish anything!
The important thing is to find out what is really happening.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991118 000743 msg10717.tex]

481
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

V35A-TC
Tue, 5 May 1998 15:13:31

Good Afternoon Timothy W. Freeze,

In a message dated 98-05-05 12:25:41 EDT, you write:

Thanks for the input. I’m going fopr the test flight Wednesday
and looking forward to it.

Have fun!
You will find it a delightful airplane but a totally different breed of cat
from your F35.
It is a lot heavier and a lot more expensive to maintain. There are some
areas of reduced maintenance due to the heavier and more rugged airframe
but the addition of the turbo and the more expensive fuel control system
add considerable to the maintenance costs.
It isn’t just the turbo system and heavier engine that add to the weight, the
airframe is substantially heavier. The newer the Bonanza, the more Baron
parts it has in it and consequently, the heavier it is. Not all bad, but they
just don’t have the deliciously light control forces and responsiveness of the
early airplanes.
For high altitudes the turbo is great, with tip tanks the range can still
be substantial. If you need the performance available, the costs are not
excessive. If you don’t need the altitude capability or the higher speeds
available, your F will operate a lot cheaper!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980505 151331 msg02264.tex]

482
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

Which Bonanza?
Mon, 7 Feb 2000 11:02:17

In a message dated 2/7/00 8:34:35 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

The unstated assumption here is that one is comparing a later

model Bonanza (and that cost) against what it would cost to
upgrade an earlier model to the same level of fit and finish
(plus the lower initial purchase price), correct?

Good Morning John,

I believe your above statement is correct when only the potential for finan-
cial recovery or possible appreciation in value is considered. Most changes
to a stock factory airplane affect the airplane like a swimming pool in the
midwest affects a house. It may make it easier to sell or it may make it
harder to sell, but it affects the value very little, if at all.
If you can find the airplane that fits your mission, buy it!
The Bonanza line is unusual in that the same basic design is available in
airframes of many very different strengths and weights.
Continental has maximum continuous horsepowers from 165 to 300 avail-
able in engines that are all almost the same size and shape. Any of them
will fit in any of the Bonanzas or it’s derivatives. The 470, 520 and 550 all
weigh about the same. The E series engines are lighter, but still the same
size.
The option is there to build almost anything your heart desires, but custom
building anything is more expensive than choosing a high production item.
If you want an airplane that will carry six adults and baggage on a thousand
mile trip, no Bonanza will do it, but the model 36 will. If you have a
vacation home with a nice 800 foot strip in the backyard, An A35 with an
E225 and an eighty-eight inch Beech electric might be a better choice than
the stretch Debbie!
(Before somebody complains, I love the Debonair and the Stretch Debonair,
but all Bonanzas have V-tails, regardless of what the Beech sales depart-
ment decreed!)
Throwing more horsepower at an airplane is a terribly inefficient way to
get speed.
The heavier airplanes will attain maximum efficiency at a higher indicated
airspeed, but they will still burn more fuel doing it. Nothing is free.
I like the big engines for the rate of climb they provide. I also like an

483
 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN

airplane that can safely get out of any airport it can safely land at. The
big engine helps!
Enough philosophical discussion. I gotta run!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000207 110217 msg02509.tex]

484
Chapter 4

EQUIP

4.1 EQUIP-DEICE

485
4.1. EQUIP-DEICE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Prop Deice
Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:17:28

In a message dated 1/16/00 3:52:57 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Geez, wouldn’t that be the greatest thing going ... a spray-

on anti-icer? Who cares if it’s not approved by the Federale
battle ’droids ... it’d still be great for helping you get out of
a bad situation in which you didn’t want to find yourself.

Good Afternoon Eric,

It would be nice!
I have tried several different compounds over the years starting fifty years
ago with B. F. Goodrich’s ICEX. I find that most of them will make the
ice easier to remove once I am on the ground, but none of them had any
appreciable influence on the rate or amount of accretion on the airframe.
I have used various anti-ice sprays around the gear doors and such when I
am departing in slushy conditions near freezing. I think it helps, but who
knows for sure.
There was an ablative material on the market a few years ago called XIM.
It took more trouble to apply and remove than did Gliddens silicone wax
based Glidair Ice Repellent. It worked a little better, but I haven’t seen
it anywhere for at least the last twenty years. ICEX is still available, but
it is designed primarily as a dressing for rubber deicing boots. Both XIM
and Glidair worked better than ICEX for metal when I tried them all.
I now use ICG as sold by Sportys in the yellow can. It appears to me to
be the same product as was previously sold by Gliddens. I would imagine
it was spun off to a small manufacturer with insufficient assets to be worth
suing!
That works for me on the prop and I am interested in anybody’s ideas for
the rest of the aircraft!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
P S Somebody also mentioned the possibility of placing loudspeakers in the
wings to provide a sonic method of ice removal such as has been done to
discourage barnacles on ships!
[ARTICLES/20000116 171728 msg00898.tex]

486
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL

4.2 EQUIP-ELECTRICAL

487
4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

28 Volt Bonanza’s
Fri, 8 Jan 1999 18:39:56

In a message dated 1/8/99 3:29:56 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Which Bonanza’s use 24v?

The 28 volt system is used on F33A CE-748, CE-772 and after, V35B D-
10097, D-10120 and after, A36TC EA-1 thru EA-241, EA-243 thru EA-272,
F33C CJ-149 and after, A36 E-1111, E1241 thru E-1945, E1947 thru E-
2103, E-2105 thru E-2110, B36TC EA-242, EA-273 thru EA-319, EA-321
thru EA-388.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990108 183956 msg00348.tex]

488
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL

Alcor/InterAv Alternator
Mon, 7 Feb 2000 17:52:05

In a message dated 2/7/00 4:44:16 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

My partner and I recently purchased a J35 that has the alcor

alternator mod installed. The log entry(8/15/75) references
STC SA334SW but there is not STC or 337 in the paperwork.

Good Afternoon Bob,

That STC number is the one currently sold by Interav. They must have
acquired the approval.
Interav has always been very receptive and helpful. Give them a call!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000207 175205 msg02528.tex]

489
4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Alternator Failure
Tue, 1 Feb 2000 19:02:06

In a message dated 2/1/00 5:07:22 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob:
I have never had an alternator failure. How do you know
that you have one? When you recognize that you have had
one, besides turning off all nonessential equipment, what else
should you do (besides getting down)? Alt switch off?
Steve

Good Evening Steve,

On my airplane there is a red warning light on the floating panel that lights
up when the primary alternator fails as well as a yellow warning light on
an Electronics International Loadmeter which lights any time the battery
is supplying current to the aircraft system. Now that I have the B&C unit,
there is also a yellow warning light that illuminates any time the standby
alternator is putting out current whether the primary has failed or not.
For aircraft without any warning devices, it can be rather insidious. By
the time you notice things aren’t working right, the battery is likely to be
pretty well depleted. If your airplane is not equipped with some sort of
an alternator failure warning device, I think I would look into getting one.
The Gizmo looked like a good choice and I have been happy with the EI
unit. I am not sure whether the Gizmo is available now or not. I’m sure
there are other good ones considering all of the monitoring stuff that is on
the market today.
Once you have determined the alternator has failed, the first step is to
reduce the electrical load to as low an amount as practical. I was once IFR
in cloud when I had an alternator failure. I turned off the autopilot and
all other nonessential equipment. Used just one Nav/Comm, my IFR GPS
and transponder plus communicated as little as possible. The approach
was an ILS to about a five hundred foot ceiling so I left the gear alone till I
was sure I had the field made. I figured I could crank it down while circling
beneath the overcast if required. The battery took it out in the usual four
seconds and the flaps operated normally as well. The total flight time from
the time of failure until I was on the ground was about forty-five minutes.
The battery was still showing over 23 volts when I shut things down.
I tried cranking the engine just to see how it was and it spun merrily away.
The key thing is to make sure you pick up the failure and immediately go

490
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL

into a load reduction exercise.

A good battery is usable for a long time.
I haven’t had an alternator failure since I installed the standby unit. I
imagine now that I have the backup, my primary alternator will last forever!
Isn’t that the way things work?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000201 190206 msg02275.tex]

491
4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

InterAv Alternator Pully Alignment

Mon, 6 Mar 2000 11:41:07

In a message dated 3/6/00 6:34:51 AM Central Standard Time, flyin-

[email protected] writes:

If it is, have it welded. Do not bother with the rubber insu-

lated Continental mount. If it’s not, either shim or carefully
Dremel off enough of the aluminum block to make them align.
Otherwise, you’re going to be ruining alternator belts.

Good Morning Jerry,

First off, I am sure you did work hard and well to attain a proper alignment
for your belt and it will likely work well for years without throwing any
or causing premature wear, but I would like to suggest that there may be
another way to accomplish the desired result.
As you mention, it is a Continental mount, not a Beech part as I have been
calling it! I guess I was in the wrong mind set since it came from the factory
with that mount and the suggestion to change to the Anti-Vibration mount
was in a Beech Service Bulletin.
When we put the InterAv on my son’s J we ordered the parts to install the
new mount from Continental and not Beech/Raytheon.
I am not against welding a part if new is not available. There are times
when I might use welding if I feel that the part as manufactured was not
made strong enough to start with and I might reengineer it a bit to avoid
a future problem.
However, I would normally replace a broken part with a new one if it is
readily available at a reasonable price.
Secondly, if Beech felt there was a problem that was causing mounts to
break that could possibly be solved by a new mount from Continental, I
would definitely give it a try! That is what we did on my son’s airplane.
Whether it will make any difference or not, I don’t know. The longer I
don’t know, the better I will like it!
I would strongly caution against trying to attain alignment by grinding on
the aluminum adapter bar. If the misalignment is caused by the stock fac-
tory mount, I would repair or replace that component. If the misalignment
is caused by the steel ”L” brackets that Interav supplied, I would replace
or adjust those brackets. The only misalignment that should be corrected
by the use of shims or washers should be a misalignment of the pulleys fore
and aft, not to make their planes of operation parallel. If the line on which
the unit rotates to tighten is not parallel to the center line of the engine,

492
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL

every adjustment to tighten or loosen the belt will throw the alignment of
the pulleys out of parallel. You have to start from a proper base. The first
step is to get those factory components in correct alignment. That done,
the rest is a no brainer!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000306 114107 msg04321.tex]

493
4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Interav Alternator
Sun, 5 Mar 2000 18:57:51

In a message dated 3/5/00 12:04:31 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I have the Interav alternator conversion, but none of the in-

stallation data survived the previous owners.
Changing the oil yesterday, I noticed that the alternator shaft
is not aligned with the engine output shaft, but is canted
towards the shaft about 5 degrees. It looks like it was re-
assembled at some point with a spacer missing, or one of the
support brackets is on the wrong side of the mounting flange.
Anyone have a copy of the installation drawings for the mod?

Good Evening Bill,

I see John Mills has already made arrangements to get the installation
instructions to you.
I put one of the units in my number two son’s J model last year and I just
bought one to put in our Piper Pacer. I like the device, but the instructions
are rather generic. The instructions and the kit for the Pacer and the
Bonanza are identical! It just tells you to adjust the stuff as required to
make it fit and get things lined up by judicious use of washers.
The people I spoke to at Interav were very helpful and it really isn’t difficult
to install, but you won’t get a lot of help from the directions! They do
suggest that you install a Beech anti-vibration kit along with the alternator.
I would suggest that once you do get the instructions from John, you wait
until you have a few days where you won’t need the airplane and then pull
the unit off and look for broken, loose or misaligned components. Once you
get a look at the thing disassembled, the adjustments are quite obvious. I
wouldn’t be surprised if you find that it is the Beech portion of the mount
which has failed. If you do take up John’s offer to fly the book over to
Tehachapi, Try to get a good look at his installation.
It is a nice unit and we have been very happy with the unit and the service
rendered.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000305 185751 msg04274.tex]

494
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL

Power Management
Fri, 6 Aug 1999 13:30:54

In a message dated 7/22/99 10:27:22 PM Central Daylight Time, jts-

[email protected] writes:

I assumed the 50 amp alt is not enough but it seems a consen-

sus that it is, if it’s working, and that I need to look further.

Good Afternoon John,

I am just mulling through the several hundred messages that were received
while I was away for OSH and this may have been well covered in something
that I have not yet read.
The key is to whether or not you desire to have adequate electrical output
to power everything on your airplane all at the same time or whether you
are content with the FAA suggested loading which says that you should
have sufficient capacity such that the normal steady loads are no more
than eighty percent of the power source’s maximum capability.
Landing lights are considered to be intermittent and are not required to
be considered in the computation. The early airliners were not equipped
with enough generator capacity to run everything all at the same time
and most light airplanes are not built that way either. The early Bonanza
landing lights, which were mounted in the wings, were meant to be used
primarily while airborne and for a limited amount of time. If they were
used continuously on the ground, the heat would warp the lenses!
Nowadays when landing lights are often used for conspicuity purposes, there
is good reason to consider a higher capacity electrical source but it might
be cheaper and more practical to install a set of lower power conspicuity
lights in the wing tips than use landing lights for that purpose.
My first Bonanza had a twenty-five amp generator. By judicious manage-
ment of that power, night IFR was practical. I soon upgraded to a thirty-
five amp unit and that was more than enough provided I used the landing
lights sparingly. The normal running loads for those early airplanes was
about the same as the aircraft of today. We have added more conspicuity
lighting such as rotating beacons and strobes, but the electronics require
vastly less power in their non transmitting state.
I think the power requirements then and now are about a draw.
An advantage of the alternator is that it will supply a lot more power at
low RPM than does an equivalently rated generator.
I would think that any small airplane with fifty amp alternator should be
relatively easy to manage properly in today’s environment.

495
4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

My airplane running at night with the pitot heat on, all autopilot functions
in use and lit up like a christmas tree draws only about twenty-four or five
amps at twenty-four volts. It wouldn’t take much to reduce the load below
twenty amps which would put the load at a power equivalent of eighty
percent of the capacity of your fifty amp twelve volt system. Certainly
seventy amps would be better, but some of those units get awfully large
and are difficult to service.
A little effort at power management can go a long way.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990806 133054 msg06713.tex]

496
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL

Standby Alternator
Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:32:41

In a message dated 4/21/99 8:54:35 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

When you said ”When I get Bill Bainbridge’s standby alter-

nator approved on my airplane”, it piqued my interest. I’m
looking for a sources of 24 VDC standby alternators. Can you
give me a lead?

Good Evening Russ,

Bill has the approval for his very nice little 20 amp, twenty-four volt standby
alternators on 1984 and later model 36s. The unit bolts to the right hand
accessory pad and has an automatic regulator that allows it to pick up the
load when the primary voltage falls to somewhere in the 26 volt range. It
has been used for the past few years on the Mooneys that are approved for
known ice.
He has applied for an STC for the other Bonanzas, both twelve and twenty-
four volt.
I have submitted an application for a field approval on my V35B which has
a twenty-four volt system. So far, the FEDs have had no comment.
Check with Bill Bainbridge at B & C. Specialty Products Inc., 316 283-
8000.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990421 223241 msg03959.tex]

497
4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Standby Alternator
Thu, 10 Jun 1999 19:04:13

Good Evening All,

I have been taking a vacation from the Bonanza E-mail list for the last few
weeks in order to get some projects finished that had been dragging along
a little too slowly.
One of those projects was the installation of a Standby Alternator System
designed and manufactured by Bill Bainbridge of B&C Specialty Products.
The unit has been used on the Mooneys for a couple of years now with
excellent results. Raytheon has cooperated with the approval of the al-
ternator on A36s E-2104, E-2111 and after, along with B36TCs EA-320,
EA-440 and after. The approval for those aircraft was issued on December
18, 1998.
Since there are a considerable number of differences in the electrical system
of my old V-tail and those late model Stretched Debbies, the approval was
not applicable to my old machine.
I purchased the components and prepared a tentative 337 for a local one
time only approval. The package was submitted on March 11, 1999, and the
approval was issued on June 8, 1999. I completed the conformity inspection
and returned the aircraft to service on June 9, 1999.
The major stumbling block appeared to be the requirement for some changes
in the Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement. The local FSDO
does not have the authority to approve those changes and they had to be
submitted to the Chicago Aircraft Certification Office for review.
Fortunately, they seemed to have a relatively light workload at the time we
requested the review and it was done quite expeditiously.
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness were required, but the FAA has
a nice little handout that was quite easy to follow. The ones I wrote were
accepted without change.
The changes I made in the Flight Manual Supplement were also accepted
without change.
The inspector from the local FSDO came out on June 9th to look it over
and was happy with the installation so I now have a very nice little 20 amp
Standby Alternator available should my primary one ever fail again.
Over all it was a very pleasant experience. The local FSDO was cooperative
and pleasant to work with. The Chicago ACO was likewise very cooperative
and handled things in what I would consider a very short period of time.

498
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL

It is a neat little unit. If anyone would like more information, let me know
or you might like to contact Bill Bainbridge directly at 316 283-8000. I
recommend him and his product highly.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990610 190413 msg05248.tex]

499
4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Standby Alternator
Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:24:50

In a message dated 6/10/99 10:41:04 PM Central Daylight Time, jwhite-

[email protected] writes:

Is your system set up in any way such that you can regularly
test the actual function of this stdby alternator? That is, does
it kick in by you simply turning off the alternator - is it passive
- or do you have to be proactive and force it on?

Good Evening John,

Yes, if the primary alternator is turned off, the standby one will pick up
the load.
As long as the standby master switch is turned on, the unit is available
for use. If the primary system voltage drops below 26 volts, the standby
alternator will become active and an annunciator will light to advise you
that it is doing it’s thing. No other action required except to monitor the
output of the standby alternator to maintain it below 20 amps. I am told
that the alternator is capable of outputting at least twenty-six to twenty-
eight amps, but it is conservatively rated at twenty.
My normal night time IFR (pitot heat on) amperage requirements is around
twenty-one or twenty-two amps. I don’t think I would have to shut much
down to stay within the specification of the unit.
It does require at least 1800 RPM or so to provide usable output but I
don’t anticipate that to be a problem.
Hopefully there will never be a need for the thing, but it is comforting to
have it aboard. The total weight of the installation is around six pounds.
It consists of the alternator itself, the regulator, an annunciator, two circuit
breakers, a master switch, a current limiter and a capacitor.
I happened to have an Electronics International Volt/Ammeter already
installed and I use it to monitor the output. Bill has designed a circuit
that will flash the annunciator light if the load goes over twenty amps but
I have not installed that function. It will probably be added later.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990611 002450 msg05253.tex]

500
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL

Standby Alternator
Wed, 8 Dec 1999 22:53:57

In a message dated 12/8/99 8:43:33 PM Central Standard Time, jack-

[email protected] writes:

Does anyone have any experience with this unit.

Good Evening Jack,

I installed one of those units on my Bonanza in June of 1999. So far I
am very happy with the installation. I do check it every now and then by
shutting down the primary alternator. It always works!
I like the lack of clutches and relays. Nothing to switch or select. The
standby alternator picks up the load automatically whenever the system
voltage falls to 26 volts. It will even come on line if the primary alternator
is overloaded for some reason.
If the unit is producing more current than it is built to deliver, the load can
be reduced by the pilot as he/she sees fit, but there is no hurry as it will
handle a forty to fifty percent overload for some time without difficulty.
I hope I never have the opportunity to see it operate when it is truly needed,
but it is nice to know that it is there!
The installation was relatively simple and it takes little space.
I guess you can see that I am happy with the unit!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991208 225357 msg11809.tex]

501
4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Standby Alternator and AC Fuel Senders

Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:49:38

In a message dated 6/11/99 11:24:09 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Are you one of the few 28V V tails, or is this a 14V setup?
You would probably make some dough if you went ahead and
got an STC for this.
Bill H.

Good Afternoon Bill,

Mine is an early twenty-eight volt system, S/N D-10173. I think Bill Bain-
bridge is working hard trying to get it approved for the early airplanes. I
wish him well. The twenty amps is plenty for my airplane, but I suppose
that with the fourteen volt systems it would take some judicious planning
to handle a night/IFR trip. It’s still a lot better than the abomination
Beech was offering! I keep thinking back to the days when I was flying
serial D-10. It had a twenty-five amp generator and I flew it IFR and
at night all of the time. Wasn’t all that bad as long as you watched the
power consumption. That was in the days of the Narco VTR-1, VTA-1,
Motorola LF and such which used a lot more juice than the stuff we now
have available.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990611 134938 msg05259.tex]

502
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL

Standby Alternators
Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:20:21

In a message dated 7/3/00 9:37:19 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Would you take-off with only the standby alternator operat-

ing? Jack Taylor

Good Evening Jack,

That IS a major problem, especially with the 520 and 550 which have the
alternator driven off the crankshaft. My feeling is that a landing should be
made as soon as practical following an alternator failure.
If it was a mechanical failure which was in the process of distributing metal
around the one and only powerplant, as soon as practical could be pretty
soon!
There was a rash of mechanical failures with that nose mounted position
early on, but the incidence of such failure has decreased dramatically if the
alternators are inspected as now recommended.
I have had three alternator failures in the last 1500 hours, all of which were
various electrical problems.
I also experienced a slipping clutch which, if I had not picked up on it,
could have led to a failure which would spread metal. Not too likely, but
possible.
As to whether or not one could, or should, continue the flight after a deter-
mination was made that the alternator was mechanically sound, but just
not generating electricity, that brings up some problems.
It would not be legal to depart with just the standby operating unless you
obtain a ferry permit and have it signed by an A&P or other authorizing
entity.
I believe George Braly is applying for authority to continue in VFR condi-
tions with has standby alternator if it can be determined that the primary
alternator is mechanically sound, just electrically inoperative.
I would imagine it would be necessary to include a procedure in the FAA
Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement to spell out the method of
making the determination.
Would I make a takeoff with just the standby alternator operating if I was
sure the primary unit was safe to operate?
If it was legal, absolutely!

503
4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Now, would I do it illegally?

I guess I would have to say that depends!
There are many things that I think are safe to do with the airplane that
I don’t do because the penalty of certificate action or loss of insurance
coverage is too great to make the risk worthwhile.
But I am sure there are conditions when I might decide that the risk is
worthwhile!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000704 002021 msg10488.tex]

504
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL

Starter Hang Up Warning Light

Sat, 12 Jun 1999 10:44:46

In a message dated 6/12/99 6:51:47 AM Central Daylight Time, home-

[email protected] writes:

MY QUESTION: since the starter is just a DC motor, if the

Bendix locks-up, wouldn’t the starter motor act as a ”genera-
tor” and then light up the warning light too? Any comments
would be appreciated.

Good Morning Cliff,

MY ANSWER - Duh, might, but sounds too simple to me!
That being said, I do believe the previous correspondents were referring
to the tendency of the starter relay to remain engaged, for whatever rea-
son, and continue to operate the starter after the starter switch has been
released.
That has occurred on several Cessna 210s, possibly many other types as
well. On the 210s it is known to have started in-flight fires. I haven’t heard
of any fires occurring on the Bonanza, but I don’t read the discrepancy
reports all that often. Beech added a starter powered warning light some
years ago to alert the operator that power was being applied to the starter
motor. That is accomplished by running a wire from the output side of the
starter relay to a warning light on the floating panel and then to ground.
Another wire is taken from the panel light test switch to the power side of
the light to provide test capability (of the light). In order to preclude the
power from the test circuit trying to power the starter, a diode is inserted
in the circuit between the starter power side of the starter relay and the
warning light. On the twenty-eight volt system (the only one on which
Beech used the light) the diode was initially a 1N4005 which was later
superseded by a 1N4007.
I installed the warning system on my airplane several years ago and con-
sidered it a minor alteration, thus requiring only a log book entry. Some
IAs or FEDs may disagree.
If you wanted to eliminate the test function, the diode could be eliminated.
Operation could then be checked by monitoring the light while cranking
the engine and observing that it extinguishes when the starter switch is
released.
In the case of the starter relay hanging up, it is obviously still powered and
the generation of a current flow would not be likely. I wonder what type
of voltages might be generated under the conditions you describe?

505
4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990612 104446 msg05267.tex]

506
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL

Strobes - Wing Tip

Thu, 12 Mar 1998 03:34:20

Good Morning Joe Garner,

In a message dated 98-03-11 23:50:28 EST, you write:

Im thinking of installing wing tip strobes on my N35 and won-

der how much trouble it would be to run the wires through
the wings? Can anyone comment on the job or offer sugges-
tions... And any ideas pro/con on power supplies in each tip
or one in the middle?

I suppose there are lots of possible solutions but the one I used a few years
ago on my V35B was to run the wires along the same bundle as the existing
nav light wires. It wasn’t all that hard, surprisingly. The Bonanza doesn’t
have as many inspection plates as a Cessna but with a little thought, and
maybe some assistance from people with longer and/or skinner arms, you
should be able to get the job done.
Another possibly easier route would be the method Allen Peterson uses for
the wiring on the BDS tip tank installations. Put the wires in a piece of
protective plastic tubing and lay it in the bottom of one of the ”J” stringers
along the bottom of the wing. He then uses hot glue judiciously placed to
keep the tubing in place. If you elect to do the latter, be sure and clear
it with your friendly AI. I have heard some say that they don’t like the
method. It is easy though, and that is the way my tip tank wiring was put
in by Allen in 1979. It looks a little crummy but I have had no problems
with the tip tank wiring at all!
I wanted all three of my strobes to fire at the same time and when I installed
the Whelen system to do that a few years ago it was necessary to use
three separate units tied together with a ”trigger wire” to comply with
the whelen STC. I felt that I would sooner have the high voltage wires
as short as possible so I mounted one unit in each tip and one in the
tail. Probably not necessary but it seems to work OK and I haven’t had
any audio interference from the strobes. (Lots of people mount the power
supplies aft of the baggage compartment and that seems OK also). Be
sure and use the shielded wire grounded as called for by the Whelen STC.
Since the tiptanks were in the way of mounting the power supplies on the
outside of the tip ribs, I removed the rivets holding the forward section
of the outboard ribs and replaced them with 4-40 screws and nut plates
making that section of the tip rib removable. The power supplies were then
placed on the forward side of the spar web just inboard of the tip rib. I
don’t remember whether the N model has a solid spar web in that area or
just top and bottom stringers like the early airplanes, but I would suppose
a web section could be added if none is installed in that bay.

507
4.2. EQUIP-ELECTRICAL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Once again it is important that your AI be happy with the installation

before you attempt the mod. If there is any doubt, draw up your proposed
installation and submit it to the FEDs for local approval on a 337 before
you start.
My AI thought it looked fine and was just a minor alteration but we did
submit a standard 337 form with no request for ”local approval” and it
went though fine so I went ahead with the installation.
My method was rather labor intensive but it makes a very nice installation
and has worked well. I don’t know if I would recommend it at shop rates!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980312 033420 msg01212.tex]

508
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

4.3 EQUIP-ENGINE

509
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Air/Oil Separator
Thu, 25 May 2000 11:35:51

In a message dated 5/25/00 8:18:57 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I do NOT want to dump that **** back into my engine.

I DO want to see what’s coming out of the breather, even if I
have to clean it off the belly, and then fix whatever is wrong
that put it there in the first place.

Good Morning All,

As usual, I agree with John on this one.
Every time I have an occasion to clean an oil separator and observe the
gunk and junk that it has collected, I wonder why anyone would want one
of those on his/her airplane.
The big boys tell me that the temperatures of the engine will boil all of
the bad stuff off and it will leave the airplane as a vapor. I suppose that is
true, but why not just let it go along with a little teeny bit of oil the first
time around?
I doubt that the amount of oil lost between oil changes via a standard
breather vent on any engine that is running properly would amount to
enough to be measurable on a dip stick. If there is enough going over the
side to be measurable, something needs to be fixed.
At least, that its the way I see it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000525 113551 msg08630.tex]

510
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

Baffling
Mon, 28 Dec 1998 23:58:28

In a message dated 12/28/98 5:03:24 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

..and where can I get information on the new style baffle that
may be suitable if I stay with the IO-520? Thanks Bill Finlen
Australia

Good Evening Bill Finlen,

I don’t have anything to offer other than anecdotal evidence but just in
case you are interested, here goes!
I feel the following would apply to the IO-520 or the IO-550.
I put an IO-550B in my 1978 V35B, S/N D-10173 a couple of years ago. A
Beech baffle system, as currently installed on the model 36, was used minus
the extra gills on the side. It worked and was a definite improvement over
the original baffles, but I had a set of Beryl D’Shannon baffles installed last
month along with the 100 pound gross weight increase approval.
The factory stuff worked OK and there were absolutely no problems with
overheating except for the number two cylinder. Other than that, the
engine ran a little on the cool side.
I have about 75 hours with the new BDS baffles and couldn’t be more
pleased. They have a plenum chamber behind number two cylinder which
manages to do the cooling job nicely. As before, if there is any problem at
all, it is keeping the engine warm!
The one thing I would stay away from is any suggestion that additional
louvers or scoops be installed anywhere on the cowling. They don’t seem
to be needed at all.
I know that George Braly is working on a new cooling system for the series
and I am sure that whatever he comes up with will be just as great an
improvement over the stock stuff as are the GAMIjectors.
If you have the luxury of waiting for George’s stuff to be approved, that is
what I would do. If not, then I would seriously consider the BDS engine
STC, gross weight increase and their new baffle system.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient aviator
[ARTICLES/19981228 235828 msg07923.tex]

511
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Baffling
Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:51:42

In a message dated 7/20/99 5:12:43 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Does anyone in the forum know about the new cowling scoop
from = D’Shannon. Suppose to do a good job of keeping the
rear cylinders on the = 520 &550 cool. I wonder if George
Braley could share some information = with me.
John Ornellas

The scoop in question is applied to the inside (nothing external and no new
holes) of the starboard cowl door and directs air over to the port side in
the vicinity of the # 2 cylinder. Since BDS opened up the area aft of the
# 2 cylinder on their recent baffling kits, the extra air does not seem to be
needed. I don’t believe an approval for the scoop has been issued, in fact I
am not sure if they are even working on it anymore.
As I mentioned somewhere before, I am waiting (though anxiously) to see
what George Braly comes up with.
The Beech factory baffling has been known to be atrocious for many years
by many folks including the people at Beech. The changes they have made
over the years, including the side gills, have merely been Band-Aids to get
something done at the lowest possible cost. The cowl flaps need improve-
ment along with many spot redirection’s around the cylinders and potential
redesign of the inlet. Big job.
I think Allen Peterson’s current baffle is the best available, but there is still
a long way to go.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990721 125142 msg06291.tex]

512
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

Baffling
Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:07:50

In a message dated 7/14/00 10:33:44 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Engine is about 50 SFOH. Baffles are new and I think they

seal well.

Good Afternoon ?,
I am sorry, but I have lost the name of the person who started this thread!
In addition to the excellent advice to assure that the fuel flows are at the
redline or slightly over, consider adding the modification to the baffling
that BDS has used for the last couple of years. They have opened up the
area behind number two cylinder to allow air to circulate to the bottom
portion of the cylinder head.
The factory has been using a small box or channel to accomplish the same
thing for the last four or five years, but I don’t think the factory modifica-
tion does as well as the BDS one.
With the BDS late style box between the number two cylinder and the
oil cooler, there is no need to cut up the exterior to add those ugly extra
cooling louvers. The cylinders run nice and cool, including number two! If
you have older BDS baffling or the horrible original factory baffling, you
might see if you could get at least the space behind number two modified
to the new BDS configuration. I suppose one should try to get a local
approval to be perfectly legal, but I doubt if there are very many FAA
folks around who would know the difference if a BDS baffle for that area
were to be copied and installed.
Better yet, just go ahead and pop for the full BDS baffles, Allen Peterson
deserves to make a few bucks for the wonderful job he has done to cool
that number two cylinder!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000714 160750 msg10930.tex]

513
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Baffling
Sat, 26 Aug 2000 10:33:20

In a message dated 8/26/00 8:18:01 AM Central Daylight Time, raylock-

[email protected] writes:

I wonder if you can modify your baffling with parts of the

BDS. I would rather suspect that you would have to buy the
BDS mod on an all or nothing basis.

Good Morning Ray,

You are probably correct, but I would at least consider copying the way
BDS has the baffling on their latest iteration. I would be willing to do it
as a minor alteration, but the FAA may well disagree. A minor alteration
takes only a log book entry by the authorized person doing the work. The
IA doing an annual may or may not agree that it is a minor alteration.
Why don’t you see if your IA is familiar with the latest BDS baffling and
ask what he/she thinks about doing it as a minor alteration?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS I think that when I am at the SAT convention, I will ask Allen about
selling a modification that would just add the new open box behind number
two to the baffling.
[ARTICLES/20000826 103320 msg12609.tex]

514
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

Baffling
Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:01:48

In a message dated 9/18/00 9:00:09 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

My question is: will I see #2 CHT get better as I get more

time on the engine, or is there something that is not right?

Good Evening Jim,

Do you have the stock baffling or one of the after market setups?
The stock Beech baffling for the number two cylinder of the IO520 is atro-
cious.
BDS has a modification that brings the temperature down substantially
though George tells us (and I believe him) that the cooling is not as even
around the cylinder as it should be.
The factory started using a scoop on the back of number two around 1994
or so, at least on the 550 installations. I don’t know if it was on the last
F33As or not. The factory scoop definitely helps. George feels that it does
a better job than the BDS setup but reports from users seem to indicate
that the temperature measured at the CHT probe well will be lower with
the BDS method of opening up the rear of the area behind number two.
Once again, George agrees that the temperatures are low that way, but
that the cooling is not even around the cylinder.
in any case, I think you should take some action to modify the baffling
behind number two cylinder to increase the effectiveness of the baffling.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000919 000148 msg13702.tex]

515
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Baffling
Sat, 10 Feb 2001 08:40:52

In a message dated 2/10/01 12:17:28 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

You may already be aware of this, but to the best of my

knowledge, and I’m sure others will correct me if I’m wrong,
there is no retrofit or revised baffling kit by BDS, GAMI,
Raytheon, etc. available for the IO-520.

Good Morning Ken,

As you are aware, the exterior dimensions of the engine are identical.
I haven’t directly asked the question about an STC for the BDS or GAMI
baffling on the IO-520, but I did ask Mike Trudeau of BDS whether there
was any difference between their baffle kits for the IO-520 and their kit for
the IO-550.
I was told that the only differences were as related to differences in the
airframe into which the engine was installed.
For instance, if your S35 is one of the ones where the main cabin air is
taken from the aft starboard side of the rear baffle, there will be a large,
three inch, hole in that baffle for the hose to the muffler. The little two inch
muffler air inlet will come from the induction air box. If the kit is for my
airplane, the main cabin vent air, three inch, will come from the induction
air box on the nose bowl and the other little two inch hose to the muffler
will be taken from the right rear baffle, but way out to the right and not
directly behind number one cylinder.
I asked if there would be any problem on the approval if I used the V35B
style on my son’s S35.
His answer. Who would ever notice?
I then asked how to order to make sure the stuff I got would be consistent
with what I wanted to do and he said to just make sure I spelled out clearly
on the order exactly where I wanted all of the holes to be and they would
make it the way I wanted.
Now, I didn’t specifically ask if his baffle was approved on the 520, but it
sure sounded to me like it is!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010210 084052 msg03358.tex]

516
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

Baffling
Sun, 11 Feb 2001 08:51:15

Good Morning Ken,

You have obviously spent more thought answering this question than I have,
but I will be happy to expand on what my perception of the situation is.
In a message dated 2/11/01 1:58:56 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

The later TCM rebuilt engine comes with the seventh bolt
case and cylinder hold pads. Some of the bottom cylinder
barrel baffling must be modified to fit around these pads.

The new 520s come from the factory with the seventh stud. I have been
told that some of the overhaulers are installing the seventh stud on the
520s during overhaul. Must not be a big deal.

Also the baffling behind the alternator requires major surgery

for it to fit.

This one has me confused. I can’t recall any difference at all, but I will
take another look at our son’s 520 sometime today to see if I can spot any
difference. His engine is an old one!

So, does BDS have two baffle kits, one for the earlier case and
one for the latest case?

I don’t think so, but if there are any modifications required, I am sure they
are making them or advising the installer how to handle it, if not in the
kit, via follow up communication. Their installation instructions leave a
lot up to the installer.
Once again, every time I have asked Continental about any differences in
the case, the answer has been the same. They are the same. I have been
told by some reps that there is absolutely no difference, but by others that
there are a couple of minor machining differences internally. Don’t know
which is correct! I have never spotted anything externally except for the
seventh stud. Since that is now on both, I have no idea how to tell one
case from the other.

Also, does BDS provide a baffle design change to # 2 cylinder

on the 520?

It Depends! (I was waiting for a chance to use that)

The very early BDS baffles still had the flat plate behind number two.
About three or four years ago they started using a large plenum in the area

517
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

with the floor lower than the factory baffles, far enough so that it allows
the air into the fins below the finless area of the cylinder head. It does
nothing to force the air through the upper fins, but seems to work very
well. I have it on good authority that the cooling is definitely better than
the original factory baffling, but still rather uneven around the cylinder. I
would imagine the weak spot would be around the that upper aft portion.
My number two is now one of the coolest running cylinders. My hottest is
number six followed by four and one.

I looked at a ULTimate engine overhaul done at their facility

on a S35 and it had the latest baffle design, but no change to #
2 cylinder. As a result # 2 CHT ran hot in climb, 415-420F.
I modified it some ( the owner didn’t want the full tweak)
and it brought the CHT down closer to 400F. The engine had
an earlier case, so no retrofit of the cyl. barrel baffling was
required.
Now ULTimate does a most thorough and concise job of writ-
ing up their engine overhaul, but there was nothing (zero, stc,
337) entry regarding the baffling redesigned modification. I
suspect it was a Raytheon up-grade, thus a minor alteration.
But, I really don’t know.

For this I am at a loss! The only major change that I am aware of from
Raytheon is the little iteration they have been messing with since 93 or 94
which provides a scoop and a box to direct the air from the upper portion
of the number two head around the back and down to the lower fin area.
That has changed often since 93. I asked whether they were going to offer
that as a kit and was told it is not in the cards. I did obtain all of the
part numbers and was planning on using it on my airplane, but when BDS
came out with their plenum chamber behind number two, I decided to go
that route instead.

I’ll get on the phone Monday and satisfy my curiosity.

Be sure to let us know what you find out.

Thank you for your informed comments Bob,

My pleasure, but I don’t know about the informed part!

I was hoping GAMI would respond. KenV35A

Me too! I think George knows more about the current status of cooling for
our engines than anyone else in the world!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob

518
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

PS My personal opinion is that the biggest fault in the Bonanza series

engine installation is the lack of good airflow control across the engine.
Part of that is from the lack of effective cowl flaps. I think they don’t suck
enough air through when open and don’t block the outflow sufficiently when
closed.
I think that if we could get better cowl flaps worked out, we could elimi-
nate all of those abominable louvers and slots in the lower cowling. That,
combined with some afterbody control in the nose bowl area, should not
only help with the cooling, but pick up a few knots.
[ARTICLES/20010211 085115 msg03474.tex]

519
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Baffling
Tue, 13 Feb 2001 07:10:37

In a message dated 2/12/01 11:22:48 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

One more question: Do you have the cylinder hold down

pads on your 550? If not, that may explain our difference
in retrofitting baffles.

Good Morning Ken,

Hmmm. Now I am not sure. Do you mean the pads under the seventh stud
or something else?
The only difference I have noted between my old 1978 520 BA and the
1996 factory reman 550B I now have, has been the seventh stud and the
pad which that stud uses to better secure the cylinder base.
Is there something more?
Once again, I will try to get over to my son’s house to check his 1965 S35.
You have definitely piqued my curiosity!
I had the Colemill Starfire conversion put on my airplane in 1966. They
used the later style factory model 36 baffling with their conversion, but
without the 1993 style conduit to direct air around the backside of number
two.
That, and the lack of approval for the full 300 horsepower, is what led me
to buying the BDS baffling and installation approval in 1998.
My son and I are probably going to jury up some sort of arrangement to
better seal that right side area, but we don’t intend to get too fancy.
When the current engine gives out, it will be replaced with a 550 and new
baffling installed.
I have been very pleased with the BDS baffling, but my son and I will
obviously check out the GAMI baffling when that time comes.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010213 071037 msg03711.tex]

520
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

Baffling - Raytheon Air Scoop

Sat, 26 Aug 2000 14:56:10

In a message dated 8/26/00 1:33:30 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob,
The data I have collected show that the scoop arrangement,
when properly done, works better than simply leaving the
backside of the #2 cylinder open. Significantly better, with
more uniform temperatures.

Good Afternoon George,

I have no doubt that you have data to back up your statement and my
experience is strictly anecdotal. I had planned to add the Raytheon scoop,
but everyone who added the opened up BDS box raved so enthusiastically
about it, I decided to give it a shot. Since I installed the BDS baffling, my
number two cylinder has consistently been the coolest, but I have no way
of knowing how even that cooling is!
I have an acquaintance who has a 36 with the Raytheon scoop and his
number two is within reason, but not the coolest. That was my reason for
feeling that the BDS does it better. I can see where careful redirection of
the air could provide more even temperature around the cylinder. I didn’t
like the lack of anything to hold the air against the fins on the bottom rear
of number two so I added a plate to redirect the air closer in and keep it
tight around the cylinder more toward the bottom. But I don’t have any
way of checking whether it helped or hindered!
I am eager to try your baffling when you get it approved!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000826 145610 msg12622.tex]

521
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Brackett Filter and Alternate Air

Wed, 27 Jan 1999 01:42:25

Good Morning Scott,

In a message dated 1/26/99 11:26:12 PM Central Standard Time, sderrick@yahoo-
eng.com writes:

I have heard that with the bracket air filter that enough suc-
tion can be created at full throttle to open the alt air door.
Thats interesting there was an article in Light Plane Main-
tenance this month about how Bracket is being investigated
by the FAA because their filter doesn’t supply enough back
pressure to open the alternate air door if it gets wet or old.
Scott

I received a slightly different perception when reading the article in LPM.

I don’t think it is a matter of whether the paper filter or the Brackett filter
will cause the most back pressure, but rather that the moisture will go on
through the foam/oil filter (whether it is new or old) and freeze on portions
of the intake system downstream of the filter whereas with the paper filter,
the moisture is more likely to be stopped at the filter and freeze there which
will provide enough differential pressure to open the spring loaded alternate
air door.
I discussed the pressure loss across the Brackett filter compared to the
standard Bonanza paper filter with one of the engineers at Brackett a couple
of years ago. He advised that their tests show about one-third to one-half
an inch greater loss of manifold pressure with the Brackett than with the
standard filter. He stated that the primary advantage of their filter was that
it maintained it’s filtering capability for a longer time and provided better
filtering due to the oil impregnation. He also said that it was important
that the excess oil be squeezed from the filter before installation. They
ship them heavily saturated so that there will be enough oil to do the job
regardless of how long the element is in storage before installation.
One of the detractors of the Brackett filter told me that he had measured
as much as a two inch MP loss with a Brackett filter. I don’t know if that
was with the excess oil squeezed out or not.
Jim Freeman rigged a micro switch on his alternate air door so that he
could tell any time it opened and said it opened every time he opened the
throttle when he was using the Brackett filter.
I use a Brackett in my Pacer and a Beech unit in the Bonanza and don’t
have a strong preference for either, though the article in LPM does bring

522
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

up the point that if you are operating one of the Bonanzas that does not
have the capability of manually opening the alternate air door, there is an
increased possibility of encountering some intake icing problems that you
may not be able to get rid of.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990127 014225 msg01243.tex]

523
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Canted Mount
Tue, 30 May 2000 23:29:57

In a message dated 5/30/00 10:08:22 PM Central Daylight Time, flyin-

[email protected] writes:

Bob, isn’t this HP limitation on whether its mounted canted

or straight a legality; when in actuality, assuming you could
keep it flying straight down the runway, a person could get
the maximum HP and climb from either mounting? If its
mounted straight, you’d have to give it more right rudder.

Good Evening Jerry,

You are precisely correct!
I have, in a far distant past and in a land far, far away had occasion
to operate a Bonanza equipped with an engine that was developing a little
more horsepower than it was certificated for. I have never had any problem
with directional control with a wind on the nose or with a right crosswind.
With a very strong left crosswind and I mean a STRONG crosswind, there
is a tendency to run out of right rudder. Therefore, anytime there is a
choice, I would suggest placing the strong wind on the right even if it
meant that the takeoff was slightly downwind.
There is a whole ’nother factor here which I hesitate to bring up, but proper
use of the aileron to take advantage of the drag produced by differential
action of the aileron will aid tremendously in holding almost any aileron
equipped airplane straight. Too bad it is no longer emphasized in training
and rarely used by Bonanza pilots.
I think we can safely say that there should be no problem safely handling
the airplane with a straight mounted 550 ’Wide Open Throttle’ even if full
rudder is occasionally required.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000530 232957 msg08910.tex]

524
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

Case Cracking
Sun, 1 Nov 1998 14:57:06

Good Afternoon John,

In a message dated 11/1/98 10:17:04 AM Central Standard Time, jts-
[email protected] writes:

The case ... it’s the same as a block on an automative engine?

Similar. The block, as referred to by automotive folks, usually includes the

crankcase and cylinders in one single cast unit

Is it known What is causing the cracks?

I don’t think specific information has been passed to we folks in the field,
at least I have not seen it. Continental has worked on the problem by
increasing the amount of metal in the cases. I suppose there have been
metallurgical and casting revisions as well.
There are two basic types of case currently used by Continental. The
Permold and the Sandcast. That is about as much as I know about them,
but it was the early Permold case that had the most problems. The 520
and 550 we use both have Permold cases.
You will hear reference to the ”light case” and the ”heavy case.” Very few
of the early ”light case” units are still in the field but even some of the
early ”heavy case” engines had case cracking problems. They are getting
pretty rare on the current production engines.

Any estimate on how many cases crack and under what cir-
cumstances? Is it dangerous to your health or only wallet?

It seems that most of the cracks have shown up early in the life of an
individual case, though I have heard rumor of some coming to light on
second run or later cases. Not common though.
It was never a problem that affected the safety of the immediate flight. In
fact, the engine could remain in service with some of the cracks found. I
think I mentioned earlier about the potential for stop drilling and sealing
the cracks with epoxy.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19981101 145706 msg06564.tex]

525
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Engine Cooling
Fri, 30 Jan 1998 21:46:18

Good Evening Bob Briggs,

In a message dated 98-01-30 17:38:29 EST, you write:
Hate to break your record but I heard of one who regrets putting an IO-550
in his Bonanza – can’t keep the engine cool. Sorry I don’t know details,
but I heard this from Steve Culbertson who runs an aircraft repair shop at
Lampson Field north of San Francisco.

I had been told of temperature control problems by 550 detractors before I purchased
the 550. After the Colemill conversion was installed, I took it home, went over all of the
baffling myself and sealed every little nook and cranny.
No lower side gills or anything. Just late style Beech side baffles and close attention to
proper fitting baffles.
I also set up the fuel controller myself to a richer setting than they had used.
My engine runs very cool, in fact I am thinking of better ways to reduce the cooling
airflow to get the temperatures up somewhat. When George Braly finishes his cooling
research, we should know a lot more about what goes on in our cowlings.
I think tighter fitting cowl flaps with side fences and eliminating the side cowl gills would
be a big help.
The aircraft you heard about must have received a poor installation. I have not met an
unhappy owner either, (other than the cylinder problem common to the entire series)
but I did hear a lot of 550 problem stories from people who neither owned nor operated
them before I bought one!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19980130 214618 msg00673.tex]

526
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

Engine Upgrade and Gross Weight Increase

Tue, 29 Dec 1998 12:29:57

In a message dated 12/29/98 8:48:19 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

Is there a gross weight increase for installing new baffles??!!! Or do they

have a different STC for a gross weight increase...I thought that the tip
tanks or the VG’s were the only ways to get a gross weight increase?

Good Morning Tony,

BDS now has a one hundred pound gross weight approval available when you install
their STC’d IO-550 conversion package. I don’t remember for sure, but I think it added
about a thousand bucks to the cost of the installation. I did a lot of other things at the
same time and didn’t break out all of the costs. If you have tip tanks there really isn’t
much advantage. What they do is take the airplane out of utility and put it in normal
whenever it is flown over (in my case) 3400 pounds. With the tips empty, my gross is
now 3500. I can go to 3550 if I put a little over four gallons in each tip tank.
It obviously doesn’t change the performance a bit, just makes things a little more legal!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19981229 122957 msg07929.tex]

527
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

GAMI Injectors and Balancing Fuel Flows

Sat, 13 Mar 1999 08:57:34

In a message dated 3/13/99 7:18:25 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

Yes, that was my understanding as I asked the same question and he advised
they will have new injectors matched for each cylinder and the cost would
be about 1/3rd of the currently available STC’d variety.

Good Morning William Webb,

As we all know, the cost of the injectors is not the reason for the pricing of the product.
As Mickey stated, a product is priced to make some money based on the cost of manu-
facture, cost of development and the amount of profit the producer feels can be derived
while still developing a market.
Any of us who have had any experience with FAA approvals of even the simplest of
devices attached to our flying machines knows the difficulty of getting an FAA approval!
I am convinced that George has a superior product.
His nozzles have exhibited a much closer adherence to specified flow rates than do the
factory nozzles.
The service, customer followup and education on usage are unequaled in our industry.
Previously manufactured factory nozzles have been so inaccurate and far from their
designed flow rates that some persons were able to use those factory nozzles in a balanced
manner by switching them around till they found ones that would then be balanced.
You lawyers can argue about this forever, but it is my opinion that once you have
determined that the nozzle is not flowing the proper rate that is called for in Continentals
Injector Service Manual, it should be withdrawn from service as it is no longer an
airworthy part.
To use such a nozzle to balance the fuel flow was just as illegal as was the use of those
factory nozzles which were bored by certain unnamed mechanics in the field. Now I would
never say that I had ever done such a thing, but it was done by a lot of people. I will
tell you that my airplane is now equipped with a very nice set of LEGAL GAMIjectors
and it runs as well as it ever has. Beyond that, I will say that it runs better than any
fuel injected engine I have flown without such well balanced injectors or with any that
had home blown balanced injectors.
I am glad that Continental has been forced to join the rest of the world.
We all owe a major debt of gratitude to George for bringing out into the open a situation
that has been primarily discussed quietly and surreptitiously by those who attempted
to do unscientifically what George and Tim accomplished legally and with DATA.
I am confident that George and Company will survive and prosper.

528
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

I hope that Continental’s new nozzles have better quality control then their engines
have exhibited over the last few years and I hope they work better than the post 1992
cylinders.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990313 085734 msg02834.tex]

529
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

GAMI Injectors and Balancing Fuel Flows

Thu, 2 Sep 1999 21:12:07

In a message dated 9/2/99 5:37:26 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Below 65% you can run the mixture wherever you want to, according to
TCM, as long as you keep the temperatures under control (not too hard to
do at 11K, normally, with mine at least). Mine runs fine WOT at peak or
just a little LOP at that altitude, but I definitely see the power fall off a
little. Not what I want. Power is little enough at that altitude under the
best of conditions.

Good Evening Eric,

I understand that you want the most power you can get out of your engine when oper-
ating at altitudes where full throttle is the appropriate setting.
It is also reasonable to expect that the greatest amount of power can be extracted from
the engine when it is burning all of the fuel and all of the air. I am sure there are some
nuances there that I don’t understand, but I think that should equate to best power or
so. Best power is obtained richer than peak EGT. That is the place where the engine
will run the hottest, but it is approved for such operation if the power setting is 65% or
less.
If there is an excess of air, power will fall off. If there is an excess of fuel, power will fall
off, not as fast as it does on the lean side, but it still falls off.
If you are running your engine with an equal distribution in all cylinders, you have a
chance at operating them all at the optimum setting for your purposes. If any cylinder is
running leaner or richer than peak power mixture, you are losing some potential power.
That is where the GAMIs cone in. They allow you to balance your fuel flow to obtain
the results that you desire.
As someone else has already noted, they may save you a gallon of fuel or so per hour.
Even if that is not important to you, it will allow you to have a cleaner running engine.
If the fuel cost is a consideration, the GAMIs will pay for themselves in four or five
hundred hours of operation regardless of how you operate your engine.
If you don’t care about the cost of operation, the GAMIs will give you the possibility of
squeezing out a little more horsepower at those times when your altitude will only allow
you to get 65% or less power.
If you don’t care about the cost of operation or the power your engine will produce, who
needs GAMIs?
Happy Skies,

530
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990902 211207 msg07807.tex]

531
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

IO-470K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO-550 Conversion

Sun, 6 Feb 2000 09:49:42

In a message dated 2/5/00 10:58:33 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I am considering converting my 66 C33 w/ IO470K to

the IO470N
the IO520 or IO550.
Please provide me with any helpful advice/comments on your experiences
with such a conversion. Thanks for your time and help.
Will Farrar College Station, Texas N7929M

Good Morning Will,

Cal Young, who has been active on this list, put a 520 in a Debbie. I am not sure about
the year, but I think it was a ’62.
Our oldest son flew the airplane quite a bit both before and after the engine change.
He said it made a different airplane out of it! The thing not only went faster, but since
the rate of climb was so much better, higher altitudes became more practical and the
fuel burn per average trip actually was less with the 520 than it had been with the 470.
I think if I were doing it, I would definitely go with either a 520 or a 550. The weights
are almost the same for all three engines.
The major draw back for a 550 is the cost of the engine and the possibility that you
might have to buy a new prop.
CMC 520s and two blade props that will work are available around the country fairly
reasonably priced due to the large number of folks who opt for a 550. That is not so for
the 550. Continental is selling new and remanufactured 550s so briskly that they have
been able to maintain a substantially higher price for the 550 even though it is nothing
but a 520 with a stroker shaft.
As to the desirability of the 550 over the 520. I have been very happy that I made the
change, but it is nowhere near as dramatic improvement as the 520 is over the 470. I
find my cruise is up about ten knots. Since the climb is a little better and I now have
the capability of getting those speeds at a little higher altitude, my burn per mile is the
same or slightly lower than with the 520.
I would definitely get rid of the 470 and go to either the 520 or the 550. Financially, the
520 is likely to be a more fiscally responsible decision, but the 550 is real goer!
Hopefully Cal will come in with more information. If he does not and you would like to
get hold of him, let me know and I will contact my son to obtain Cal’s address.

532
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000206 094942 msg02450.tex]

533
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

IO-470K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO-550 Conversion

Mon, 7 Feb 2000 00:20:29

In a message dated 2/6/00 6:44:15 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

For me, the 470-N and the 520 was almost the same money, so why do the
470-N. The 550 had two strikes out for me, the cost was more and more
important, there was a need to cant the engine (too much work to the
plane) or limit takeoff HP which was too much extra work on takeoffs for
me.

Good Evening Steve,

Are you sure about the need for a power reduction? I believe John Small has a P model.
Last time I asked the folks at BDS, I was advised that they have an approval for the
full 300 HP for the 550 in a P model with the engine straight, but not for the earlier
airplanes. I have never inquired about the approvals for the various Debbies.
On top of that, BDS is not the only supplier of engine upgrade STCs. If someone is
serious about stepping up, it would be pertinent to do some serious research.
Financially, it is almost always better to buy the newest, latest, finest and fastest that
you can afford. But, if you are looking for that ultimate performance, remember that all
of the Bonanzas will perform the same at the same weight and with the same horsepower.
The lighter the airframe, the better it performs!
Putting the 550 in the earlier airframe is kinda like dropping a big block Chevy engine
in a ’68 Camaro convertible. It’s a lot of fun, but may not be practical.
One thing for sure, regardless of the power available, the gross weight and speed restric-
tions should be observed, including the current speed restrictions on the 35s, A35s and
B35s.
The primary advantage of the big engine is takeoff performance, rate of climb and better
altitude capability. The additional speed that you can get by pulling high power is just
not worth it. You burn too much fuel and the airplane gets too close to the yellow line.
If all of ones flying is at low altitude and out of big airports, the 470 is plenty of power.
Now if you have a neat little strip out in the boonies with about a thousand feet of good
surface, that 550 might look pretty good!
As always, it depends.
If it was mine, it would get a 550.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob

534
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

[ARTICLES/20000207 002029 msg02488.tex]

535
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

IO-470K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO-550 Conversion

Mon, 7 Feb 2000 02:40:02

In a message dated 2/6/00 11:33:35 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob: ALL V-Tails with 550’s installed straight have a takeoff HP limit
to 285 - to do this you must watch for not-to-exceed settings for MP and
RPM. Without doing this, you run out of rudder authority. Yes I am sure
about this. Steve

Good Morning Steve,

How long ago did you get this information and from what converter? It was just about
a month ago when I called BDS. I was inquiring about hanging a 550 in an N model. I
was told, over the phone, that BDS did not have the approval to use the full 300 HP in
the N, but if I could find a P model that I wanted to stick the engine in straight, the P
model was approved.
Now I will agree that there doesn’t seem to be any reason why the P model should be
OK and the N model not, but that was the information I was given! I haven’t yet seen
it in writing though, and I wouldn’t spend any money before seeing the documentation.
Far be it from me to ever encourage anyone to do anything that is not approved. Not
only do the FEDs take a dim view of such things, but the insurance companies do as
well!
However, forty some years ago, I had the opportunity to fly a straight thirty five which
had substantially more power available than it was designed for. It would run out of
rudder in a strong left crosswind. It wasn’t as big a problem as it might have seemed.
I just tried to avoid strong left crosswinds! A slightly downwind right crosswind was
preferred to a strong left one.
Have you ever spoken to anyone who has a non-canted 550 installation?
It would be interesting to hear their comments.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000207 024002 msg02495.tex]

536
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

IO-470K to IO-470N, IO-520 or IO-550 Conversion

Mon, 7 Feb 2000 20:49:40

In a message dated 2/7/00 6:46:00 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Soooo - I called BDS and spoke to Scott (just now) and the 550 can go
into the N or P (as well as many other models). AND when installed
straight, it is derated to 285HP by the STC paperwork (nothing is done to
the engine). The only way to get this derating is MP and RPM settings
for takeoff. Steve

Good Evening Steve,

That does make more sense!
I couldn’t see any reason that it should be approved on the P and not on the N. I had
planned to call them today, but didn’t get around to it. Thanks for checking it out.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS When I had the Colemill conversion done, it was derated from 300 to 285 by just
reducing the manifold pressure. I would imagine the same could be done with the N
or P. As Cy Galley mentioned, there are a lot of airplanes that have a MP restriction
for takeoff. Not too difficult to manage. If an old man like me could handle it on
the Colemill conversion, I would imagine you young whippersnappers would have no
problem at all!
Not only that, by the time you get to a couple of thousand feet, full throttle would be
within the accepted limits anyway!
I still think I would go for a 550 mounted straight!
[ARTICLES/20000207 204940 msg02554.tex]

537
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

IO-470 Conversion
Tue, 13 Mar 2001 19:20:59

In a message dated 3/13/01 4:53:41 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I never claimed that the owner would get his money back, just that there
should be some value in the equation.

Good Evening Stuart,

This has been rather heavily beat around, but I will add some comment anyhow!
The biggest disadvantage that I see to putting the IO-470 in an airframe instead of the
E-225-8 is the additional weight involved.
The difference between the two engines is around eighty-five pounds. I have no direct
knowledge as to what the weight of any required beef up of the airframe might be, but
let’s allow five pounds. We have now added ninety pounds or the weight of fifteen gallons
of fuel to the older airframe.
That is a rather large decrease in the allowable payload capacity of those early airframes.
Is it worth doing?
Well, evidently, Scott thinks not.
There has to be a considerable increase in the potential rate of climb when the airplane
is flown at gross, but the payload at that gross figure will be less than could be carried
with the lighter weight engine.
It is possible that there could be sufficient fuel savings on a long trip to offset the
additional weight of the larger engine, but it would take some pretty extreme conditions
to attain it. While some of the E series engines have excellent fuel distribution with the
stock PS5C, not all do.
One hundred and twenty horsepower is a decent cruise horsepower for the early airframes.
A finely tuned, well leaned GAMI equipped IO-470-N flown at it’s optimum altitude
might turn out that 120 HP on as little as eight GPH. The 225 with less than perfect
distribution could burn as much as ten GPH. On a seven and a half hour cruise leg, the
470 would come out even. Any longer and the 470 is ahead!
BUT! There are other advantages to going modern. Once you have bitten the bullet and
decided to live with the loss of ninety pounds of potential payload, you are in a position
to raise the horsepower considerably with no further additional weight (after you win
the lottery)!
The 520 and the 550 will slip right in the same spot at the same or less weight. Lots
more money, but no more weight or loss of payload.

538
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

The E series engines are all excellent and extremely light weight engines. I, personally,
never thought there was 20 horsepower difference between the E-205 and the E-225, but
who knows for sure! I always felt that the 205 with an 88 inch prop did as well as the
225 with 84. Never flew a 225 with the 88, that may well do better
With the IO-470-N, I think you could conservatively count on an additional thirty horse-
power more than you have with the 225. Maybe more. Thirty HP won’t do much for
speed, but that is 990,000 foot pounds per minute climb that is available at any chosen
climb speed. If your airplane is at a gross weight of 2750 pounds, that should give you
an additional 360 FPM. Nothing to be sneezed at!
If it were my airplane, being used as I use my airplane, I would go for the more mod-
ern, easily maintained engine, higher rate of climb, greater selection of propellors and
potential for further gains provided by the IO-470-N.
To Each His Own.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010313 192059 msg05856.tex]

539
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

IO-470 vs. IO-520

Sun, 30 Aug 1998 21:34:31

Good Evening Eric Poole,

From what I understand, the IO-550 STC requires a three blade prop
(someone please correct me if I’m wrong on this), so the chances are I’ll go
with the 520.

There are no two blade propellors approved on the IO550B which is the engine normally
usd when 550s are put in Bonanzas. Some of the two blade props weigh as much as the
lighter three blades. There is a four blade approved but it has limited usefulness and is
very heavy.
Many of the three blade props approved on the 520s are not approved on the 550s. Be
sure and check out all of the possibilities. There may well be governor problems also.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980830 213431 msg05022.tex]

540
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

IO-470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO-550

Sat, 30 Oct 1999 17:59:40

In a message dated 10/30/99 4:45:49 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Everything else being equal, WOT and 2350, 11,000 ft, how much can I
expect the true airspeed to increase with the 520? The 550?

Good Afternoon Eric,

Strictly a WAG, but I would expect 163 knots with the 520 and 173 with the 550.
The big improvement would be in the rate of climb. It makes it ever more practical to
go high, even on the short trips.
If I could find the right airframe, something between the H and a P, I would buy it and
do just that! One of the nicer aspects of the pre model S35 airplanes is that the engine
can be mounted straight instead of crooked. That should make it faster, but who could
know without giving it a try! Some pundits claim that would allow as much as five more
knots.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991030 175940 msg09906.tex]

541
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

IO-470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO-550

Wed, 3 Nov 1999 00:29:22

In a message dated 11/2/99 10:18:06 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

The way I remember its only the motor mounts that offset the motor, I
dont think nosebowl mods are required– could be wrong about that on
some models though...

Good Evening Joe,

The S model was the first Bonanza with the canted engine. All previous models had
the engines installed more or less straight. With the offset, the prop shaft is no longer
in the center and consequently, the small afterbody that had been behind the propellor
spinner on all of the earlier airplanes was eliminated. If the engine is to be installed in a
P model or earlier in the canted position, the open inlet is required. Either the existing
nose bowl must be modified or a new one installed. There are also numerous changes
required of the baffling. Not a big deal if you are replacing all of the baffling anyway,
but if you plan on using some or all of the old baffling, it can add quite a bit of cost and
or labor to the conversion.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991103 002922 msg10066.tex]

542
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

IO-470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO-550

Sun, 28 May 2000 09:57:54

In a message dated 5/28/00 7:22:18 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I don’t WANT to upgrade to a bigger engine and then have to put up

with all sorts of cooling problems from then on out. The 470 is absolutely
powerful enough for me, and runs nice and cool, if I could only get it to
perform decently in the altitudes in the mid-teens.

Good Morning Eric,

I guess we could argue forever on how much power is enough power, but I have a hard
time convincing myself that I should carry around a 470 cubic inch engine when a 550
cubic inch engine that weighs the same can be put in the same space. The only problem
is the price that Continental is getting for the engine!
I suppose that I am once again in the nostalgic mode, but I remember how disappointed
I was when the H model came out with the first 470. It was such a dog compared to
the G model that I don’t know if I would have become such a Bonanza lover had I not
flown the older light weight Bonanzas before I flew the H.
I kept a straight 1947 model 35 as my personal airplane during the H through the P
model era.
Once the S came out, it was a different story. While the airplane was still a lot heavier
and not as lively as the E series powered aircraft, the takeoff and climb performance was
back up to the standards of the earlier airplanes. Not as good for real short fields due
to the higher stall speeds, but the climb was equivalent to or better.
The 550 makes the good airplane even better, there just is no substitute for cubic inches.
When you can get those cubic inches with little or no gain in weight, I can’t see any
reason not to do so.
You have mentioned that your friend’s V has cooling problems. I would suggest that he
has baffling or fuel flow troubles. The factory baffling is atrocious, but even it will keep
the 520 adequately cooled if maintained and operated properly. The 550 is a different
story. All of that horsepower in the same space cooled by baffling that was originally
designed for 185 horsepower does need better cooling.
I have no doubt that George’s new baffling will cool the engine more than adequately.
I had the newer Beech model 36 baffling installed with my 550. It was OK, but I had
the latest style BDS baffling installed a year and a half ago and cooling is no problem
at all. George’s solution will be even better.
My oldest son was in a flying club that had a very nice 1962 Debbie with the 470. They
had a 520 put in it about twelve or fifteen years ago. It made it into a totally different
airplane! The rate of climb was so much better that he was actually burning less total

543
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

fuel on his normal trips. He felt that was due to the ability to get to cruise altitude
so much faster and the greater efficiency available at reasonable cruise speeds at those
altitudes. I find the same thing true with my change to the 550. My climb rate and
performance at altitude is so much better that I am getting places faster on the same
or less fuel.
The only reason I can see to NOT put a 550 in any Bonanza is money.
It is not a good financial move when you look at the selling prices of airplanes so
equipped. The market does not reflect the costs involved. I guess that means one
should search for an early airplane that IS so equipped!
Them’s my thoughts!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000528 095754 msg08824.tex]

544
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

IO-470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO-550 vs. Turbo

Sat, 26 Feb 2000 16:50:30

In a message dated 2/26/00 2:42:37 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

That’s one big reason I’d go with the 520. Are you saying that the canted
installation is needed for the 520 as well?

Good Afternoon Eric,

I don’t know for sure. As I said, I asked that question of the previous owner of TurboFlite
and he told me that they only had approval for the canted installation. When I pressed
for further information, he told me that their parts wouldn’t fit on an engine that was
mounted straight.
Having said that, I don’t think he knew very much about the whole project. Before they
had the approval for the 550, I had asked him if their unit was going to be approved on
that engine as well as the 520. He told me that they were working on it, but that it would
take a lot of work and changes as the dimensions of the 550 were different. He stated
that the engine was a lot bigger and took up more room in the engine compartment.
Since I knew that he was completely wrong about that, I quit having any confidence in
anything he told me!
On my dream plane, I would try for straight ahead and a manual waste gate. If the
RAY JAY was available and approved for that configuration, it is likely that is what I
would use.
The last time I checked, the BDS approval of a 550 in any of the early airplanes is
derated to 285 if mounted straight. I doubt if there is any RAY JAY approval for that
combination. It has been a long time since they were getting theirs approved and I
doubt if that was considered.
I asked George if he was considering a manual waste gate. He told me that by the time
they got it approved, it would likely have to cost more than what they already have
approved. I don’t like the idea of the higher upper deck pressure used on the TurboFlite
conversion, but I am admittedly no expert on supercharging. Still, it does seem that a
manual wastegate would be more efficient.
I rather imagine that my son’s thought of a 550 in the J without the TN would be a
more practical solution. That would allow better climb and more horsepower for cruise
in the 10 to 12 thousand foot altitude range. He would have to restrict his use of the
throttle to avoid exceeding 285 HP for takeoff. I don’t have the data handy right now,
but I think around twenty-seven and a half inches of manifold pressure at 2700 RPM on
the 550 will give 285 horsepower. As soon as he was a couple thousand feet above sea
level, it would no longer be a problem. His takeoff at sea level would be no better than
Steve Oxman’s, but from 2000 feet on up, the takeoff, climb and cruise performance
would all be better than with the 520.

545
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Adding the TurboNormalizer and oxygen would eliminate one lightweight passenger!
Possibly you should consider doing the 550 first and deciding whether you really need
the higher altitude performance once you are familiar with the larger engine and it’s
capabilities.
I notice better performance with my 550 over the 520 in spite of the three blade propellor.
I THINK it would be even better if there was a two bladed prop approved.
Your airplane being substantially lighter than mine, should do a lot better.
I have no information concerning the difference in cost between mounting the 550 in an
early airframe straight as against the cost of putting it in crooked, but I would like to
try one straight. It may not be any better, but how do you know until you try it out?
Maybe someone who has tried both will let us know.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000226 165030 msg03687.tex]

546
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

IO-470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO-550 vs. Turbo

Sun, 27 Feb 2000 07:04:18

In a message dated 2/26/00 3:52:38 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

His takeoff at sea level would be no better than Steve Oxman’s, but from
2000 feet on up, the takeoff, climb and cruise performance would all be
better than with the 520.

Good Morning Eric,

Last night, when I wrote this comment, I did not mean to imply that Steve’s airplane
has anything other than fantastic performance! I am sure it does very well. It is just
that the 520 and the 550 weigh the same (within a few pounds either way, depending
on model and accessories) and take up the same amount of space. I am not an engineer
or a racing mechanic, but the big boys say ”you can’t beat cubic inches.”
The primary difference between the 520 and the 550 is the price Continental is able to
get folks to pay!
You asked the question: ”Are you saying that the canted installation is needed for the
520 as well?”
It is probably required by the approval currently available, but I don’t think the term
”needed” is the correct one to be applied if we are questioning whether the airplane
could be flown easily and safely using the full three hundred horsepower for takeoff at
sea level. That is the only time that much power would be available.
The easiest way to get a larger engine approved in an airframe is to derate it to the
same power as an engine which is already approved. Depending on the method of data
presentation and substantiation agreed to by the parties involved, there might not even
be any requirement for flight tests.
The comment is often made that the 520 was canted in the S model because one would
run out of rudder on takeoff with the engine mounted straight. Given enough of a left
crosswind, one can run out of rudder on takeoff with almost any Bonanza. (Or other
airplane for that matter!)
The fact that there are several approvals of the 520 in early airframes mounted straight
ahead that are successfully being operated proves to me that it does not take superhuman
skill and technique to handle that 285 horsepower!
I would also be rather surprised if there have not been a few cases where those folks who
do have a 550 mounted in an early airframe in the straight position have accidentally
used full throttle instead of 27.7 (or whatever the restriction is) inches of manifold
pressure on takeoff.
It is my not so humble opinion that any model Bonanza would not be a difficult airplane

547
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

to fly using three hundred horsepower for takeoff with the engine mounted straight
ahead.
It might require the use of some flight control technique that is not normally used by
most Bonanza pilots, but that is another story!
If your pocket book can handle it, go with the 550.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000227 070418 msg03709.tex]

548
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

IO-470 vs. IO-520 vs. IO-550 vs. Turbo

Tue, 30 May 2000 17:57:55

In a message dated 5/30/00 10:30:03 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Which brings me full circle to your argument for the 550, provided it could
be installed in my P35 without paying a large premium over a new 470.
Which as I understand it cannot be.

Good Afternoon John,

I still feel that putting the bigger engine in one of the old airframes is not a wise financial
decision, but if it were me, I would do it! I think you might find that your P model with
a 550 flown at legal gross weights would give you a rate of climb and the performance
at altitude that would do almost all of what you say you want out of the airplane.
I haven’t checked recently how much more it would cost than putting in a new 470, but
the figure I was given a year or so came out between ten and twenty-thousand. The
variables include what propellor and accessories you now have and what kind of shape
your airframe is in.
If you want to do a ’gold plate’ installation, the cost will be high whether you overhaul
the 470 or drop in a 550. Be sure that you are comparing apples with apples.
Adding the turbo will make it an entirely different machine, but it may not be the best
machine for what you want it to do.
The Turbo adds enough weight that your available useful will be reduced by an amount
equivalent to eleven gallons of gasoline. That’s an hour at medium to economy cruise
settings.
Your available takeoff horsepower will be less at sea level with the turbo, regardless of
which engine you choose. Remember, the turbo normalizer is only allowed to provide
enough boost to bring the power back up to the rated power of the engine. The power
that is needed to provide the higher upper deck pressure so that the controller may
provide enough oomph to feed the engine the air required to get full rated power has to
come off the full rated power of the engine.
I have been told that the break even point for take off power is around 2500 feet under
standard conditions. Perhaps George will have some precise figure.
The 550 will provide more horsepower than the 470 for takeoff at any altitude. If you
currently have a 260 HP engine, at sea level you gain forty horsepower with a 550
installed crooked and twenty-five with the engine mounted straight. With the engine
straight or crooked, you would still get 260 horsepower for takeoff up to around four
thousand feet.
All of that with little or no weight penalty depending on the propeller and accessories

549
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

chosen.
As I said before, it may not make good financial sense. I believe that financially you
are best off to buy the absolutely newest Bonanza you can possibly afford, but an early
light weight airplane with that big bunch of cubic inches up front has to be a ball! It
may well be worth an extra ten or twenty Gs to you, I know it would be to me!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000530 175755 msg08894.tex]

550
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

IO-470 vs. IO-550 - fuel flow

Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:59:08

In a message dated 2/6/01 9:31:09 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Ok, guys, speaking of #’s, I’ve got a ?. If a person has an IO-470-C & gets
about 12 gal/hr, what will he get if he goes to an IO-550-B, 17 gal/hr? (I
know it depends g) {Nomax flame suit on} g

Good Morning Jerry,

Same speed, fuel and payload on board, it will burn the same or less fuel.
If you want to go faster at the same altitude it may be able to do just a teenie bit faster
on the same fuel due to slightly higher efficiency. You didn’t mention whether or not
you have balanced fuel injector nozzles.
With the balanced fuel nozzles on the 550 and none on the 470 you would probably get
the same speed at the same altitude on about a gallon per hour less fuel.
You would undoubtedly be able to get a higher cruise on twelve gallons per hour with
the 550 if you go up three or four thousand feet higher.
Take it up to the highest altitude that you can get where the engine will burn twelve
GPH at full throttle, 2500 RPM and leaned to peak EGT. It will be a whole lot faster!
As you say, it all depends!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010206 105908 msg02928.tex]

551
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

IO-520 vs. IO-550 - Prop

Fri, 2 Jun 2000 16:16:55

In a message dated 6/2/00 2:32:01 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Don’t most conversions need a three blade prop anyway?

Good Afternoon Eric,

There are currently no two blade props approved on the 550, but there are several
approved on the 520. If you stick with a 520, you could probably find a used two blade
that would work. If you are going to buy a new prop, you might as well get a three
blade. There are several that are approved on the 550 as well as the 520. The difference
in cost between a new two blade and a new three blade is inconsequential. A three blade
Black Mac can be had for as little as $6000 if you find a hungry enough dealer. $7000
almost anywhere!
Buy the conversion paperwork, baffling and propellor from the same source and every-
thing will likely be cheaper.
The Black Mac 406 three blade is approved on both the 520 and the 550 while there is
a version of the same prop that is especially matched to the vibration characteristics of
the 550 and listed as the 409.
The only reason that there are no two blade props approved on the IO-550-B is that
not enough people have asked for them. Most folks like the Macho look of the three
blade. There is absolutely no structural, vibration or power absorption problem with a
two blade at the RPM and propellor diameter that would be used. Properly designed,
the two blade should give better takeoff and climb while a three blade might be faster.
As we all know, there is a lot of anecdotal data that proves that the theory is not always
correct. There is just as much difference between various two and three blade props as
there are differences between high wing and low wing airplanes. Saying that one or the
other is better is like saying a high wing airplane is better than a low wing. It depends
on dozens of other factors than just where the wing is placed. The same thing goes for
propellors.
If the engine is to be mounted straight, the approval, baffling and installation added up
to around $10,000 a couple of years ago. Add seven thousand for the prop and whatever
extra the engine costs above a 470 and that should be the price. I think the whole
deal could be done for about twenty grand over a similar 470 installation cost. The
forty-thousand quoted by George is likely to be close to the cost including the new or
reman engine and exchanging your old engine and prop.
There are a lot of variables depending on which engine, prop and accessories you now
have and their condition.
Happy Skies,

552
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000602 161655 msg09046.tex]

553
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

IO-550 - Automatic Mixture Compensation

Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:52:46

In a message dated 2/14/00 9:05:52 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I bought an IO550 last year and then found out that I could have ordered
it without the automatic mixture leaning however I didn’t know that and
got the auto job. I have heard that the new Bonanzas can be had without
the auto lean feature which I think would have been better. Jack Taylor

Good Morning Jack,

Had the IO550 been available without an AMC unit when I bought mine, I would have
ordered it that way. However, since I have had the unit, I find that I do like it!
It has to be setup properly, which takes some time. It is rare that one adjustment session
will get it right. It is more likely that further adjustment will be required as things seat,
but that is true of the non-compensating fuel controls as well.
The fuel flow still needs to be monitored. The AMC isn’t perfect, but it in my opinion,
it does help.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000215 105246 msg03006.tex]

554
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

IO-550 - Automatic Mixture Compensation

Wed, 9 Aug 2000 22:49:54

In a message dated 8/9/00 9:09:07 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Really? That’s interesting. How does that affect the ability to run LOP,
run richer for cooling on hot days if needed, etc.?

Good Evening Eric,

I am not sure just what your question is, but if you are asking how the automatic mixture
compensation affects normal operation I offer the following.
You still need to adjust the mixture for all of the normal reasons, but the AMC unit
will allow a setting that you make to last for a few thousand feet up or down.
If you make a full throttle, full rich takeoff and just continue climbing without touching
the mixture, the mixture will be automatically leaned to maintain a mixture that is
relatively as rich as you had at takeoff. If you lean for climb, the AMC unit will attempt
to hold that same ratio during the rest of the climb.
It isn’t perfect, but it does a good enough job that the time spent adjusting the mixture
is reduced.
The same goes for the descent process.
I don’t find the unit bothersome and there are some labor saving advantages.
I don’t consider it a detriment, but I wouldn’t pay very much to have one added to my
engine.
All of the normal functions about which you inquire are still available to the operator.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000809 224954 msg11954.tex]

555
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

IO-550 Colemill Conversion

Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:16:22

In a message dated 11/3/99 11:09:04 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Comments and experiences with the Colemill Starfire? Is the quoted price
realistic, or do extras and up charges eat you up?

Good Morning Bob,

For what it is worth, I had a Colemill conversion done on my V35B in 1996. I found
them to be easy to deal with and pleasant to be around. I called looking for an engine,
they had all of the components in stock and I flew it home six days after I made the
first phone call inquiry. The price was exactly as had been quoted.
The reason for the four blade prop is to reduce the noise. It does that and then some.
For anyone outside the airplane the noise reduction is astounding. For the passengers,
I really didn’t notice any difference, but then, I didn’t measure it scientifically.
The prop gives a lot better ground clearance.
It looks cool, if you like such things!
It was the best conversation piece I ever owned.
It weighs some 38 pounds more than the three blade so if you need ballast forward, it
is provided by the four blade unit.
If you ever have occasion to land with the nose gear retracted while the mains are down
and locked, the propellor will take most of the damage and reduce damage to the nose
bowl and keel section.
Things I didn’t like.
The first thing is strictly my own fault. I didn’t ask the right question. I asked if the
engine was rated at three hundred horsepower. They said it was and it is. But not in
my airframe with the Colemill conversion! After my old engine was out of the airplane,
I was looking at the paperwork for the new installation and noted that there was a
manifold pressure restriction for the use of the engine in my V35B.
When I asked about that, I was told that the FAA had told Colemill they would have to
run a complete aircraft certification program to gain approval to use full throttle with
the 550 so they elected to restrict the horsepower to 285 and avoid that certification
expense. They do a similar thing with their 550 installation in the B55 Barons. The
engines are derated to the power that was originally installed.
The Colemill conversion in the model 36 is approved for full power, but not the one in
the V35B. I am not sure about the model 33 approvals, but I think they are the same
as the V35B. If you want the full power for takeoff at low altitude airports, be sure to

556
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

check it out.
The baffling they use is the standard late model Beech model 36 baffling. It is better
than the regular V35B baffling, but not as good as the latest BDS stuff.
I found that the four blade just didn’t give me the takeoff and climb performance that
I expected. It is a very subjective evaluation, but I don’t think the initial takeoff
acceleration was as good with the four blade as it had been with the 520 and the two
blade.
It bothered me that if I elected to use full throttle on takeoff at low altitudes, I was
violating an FAR. I do enough things wrong when I am trying to be legit without
consciously disobeying the rules!
I investigated the cost of getting a BDS installation approval along with a 406 or 409
McCauley prop. It seemed the cost of baffling, approval and a prop would be a little
over ten thousand bucks so I chalked it up to experience and decided to go with the
BDS approval and a McCauley 409. It was worth the money to me to have the full three
hundred horsepower legally available.
That was a year ago and just about the time I was going to bite that bullet, my nose
gear decided to get jammed in the up position which necessitated a landing with the
nose gear retracted.
I made the installation of the BDS approval as had been previously planned with the
exception of the propellor. A 406 was available immediately and I would have had to
wait a couple of months to get a 409.
I find the performance now to be much closer to what I had expected from the 550
exchange. I find my climb is substantially better than with the 520 and I normally
cruise about ten knots faster.
If anyone ever gets a two blade approved for the Bonanza with a 550B, I will give it a
try.
I believe it was Einstein who said: One experiment is worth a thousand theories!
More than you really wanted to know, wasn’t it?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991103 131622 msg10090.tex]

557
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

IO-550 Conversion
Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:48:04

Good Morning John,

In a message dated 7/20/99 7:58:11 AM Central Daylight Time, john [email protected]
writes:

Hello all, I am considering an upgrade to the IO-550 for my V35, and

would like to hear from anyone who has performed this conversion who
could answer the following:

Before I start answering the questions, I should mention that I had the installation done
by Colemill. They call it the Starfire conversion. This conversion includes the four blade
Hartzell prop. I later switched to a three blade McCauley.

+ How long did it take?

Five days

+ What unexpected problems were encountered during the installation?

None

+ How much did it cost?

$36,500 in 1996

+ What performance increases have been noted?

This is a tough one. The initial acceleration suffered with the four blade prop as did
the climb performance. Cruise was slightly better. The nicest part is that I can get the
desired cruise power at a slightly higher altitude. I find that I am cruising about ten
knots faster than I did before, but I do burn a little more fuel to do it.
Since I switched to the three blade prop, the initial TO and the climb performance has
increased and I do believe it is now better than it was with the 520 and the two blade.
I just wish there was a two blade prop approved for the 550. It may not be any better
than the three blade, but I would like to try it!

+ Have there been any problems with your IO-550?

Just the common one of all late Continentals, excessive cylinder wear. I don’t think that
has anything to do with whether it is a 550 or a 520.

+ Would you do it again?

Absolutely!
Happy Skies,

558
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990720 104804 msg06258.tex]

559
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

IO-550 Conversion
Tue, 20 Jul 1999 20:52:33

In a message dated 7/20/99 7:17:29 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Why did you trade the four-blade for the three blade? Was there a perfor-
mance decrease? Anybody else have any input to Colemill conversions?

Good Evening Pete,

The four blade did what it was supposed to do. It reduced the noise outside the airplane
dramatically. My understanding is that the airplane will meet the European noise re-
quirements with that prop and the silencers on the exhaust. There was a small reduction
inside too, but the major advantage was how quiet it was for my neighbors. I felt (no
scientific measurements) that I lost considerable performance both on the initial takeoff
run and in climb.
The airplane did not get out or climb as well with the four blade as it did with the
520 and the two blade prop. As we have discussed here many times, I don’t think the
number of blades is as important as the blade profile, twist, disc area, diameter and a
lot of luck on the designers part. The performance did improve when I installed the
Black Mac 406.
As to the Colemill operation in general, I found them easy to deal with. Nice folks
and the job was done when they said it would be and with no surprises or unplanned
expense.
They use the late style factory model 36 baffling and that seemed to work OK. I installed
BDS baffling last fall and it seems to cool the number two cylinder better than the factory
stuff did. The engine has run cool with both sets of baffling. Colemill sealed it up nice
and tight and I sealed every hole they missed. It does make a difference!
If I had to put one together today, I would use the Black Mac 409 prop and the BDS
baffling. When George Braly gets his new baffles finalized I bet they will be better! If
there was a two blade approved on the 550, I would try it, but who knows what the
result would be.
One thing for sure! I definitely would not stick any more holes or louvers on the cowl
than are there to start with! They just aren’t needed if the late style factory or BDS
baffling is used and properly installed.
Does that help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990720 205233 msg06278.tex]

560
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

IO-550 Conversion
Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:05:19

In a message dated 11/3/99 10:56:47 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

In the end, it appeared that, for me, the opportunity to upgrade to a 520
or 550 was driven by emotion and not rational economics. If I want the
extra power bad enough, I’ll sell the P and get something else.

Good Morning Mark,

I agree wholeheartedly with all points you make!
BUT!!!
Speaking of emotion, a light weight early 35 equipped with an IO-550 would be a sky-
rocket alongside a stodgy newer F33A or V35B!
If I could find the right early airframe to do it to, it would be done, regardless of the
economics.
What’s money for anyway?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991103 120519 msg10087.tex]

561
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

IO-550 Conversion
Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:46:31

In a message dated 11/14/00 9:45:32 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I have a 1979 V35B and thinking about upgrading to an IO-550.Does

anybody have numbers on changes to the 1)Weight/CG (I don’t think
it changes), 2) increase in useful load (I heard for an extra $1000 in pa-
perwork you can get a 100lbs increase, 3)Climb performance, 4) Cruise
Performance, and 5) Fuel consumption. Thanks
David Glienke

Good Evening David,

I have S/N D-10173, a 1978 V35B which I converted to the IO-550 in 1996. I now have
a little over one thousand hours with that engine. The numbers should be similar to
what you might expect.
For Number 1, the empty weight should decrease. There are some conditions though.
The engine is a couple of pounds lighter. There are lighter weight starters, alternators
and magnetos available now than were standard in 1979, but you may have those now due
to earlier replacement. If you are still using the threaded shank, two blade, McCauley
and switch to a Black Mac there is possibility of another ten to fifteen pound weight
savings.
I checked this out a couple of months ago, and off the top of my head, I think the
total weight savings could be close to forty pounds if all light weight accessories are
chosen instead of the older heavier units, but most of that saving comes from the new
accessories and propellor. You may already have some, or all, of those on your current
IO-520.
For number 2, Beryl D’Shannon does have an STC to raise the max TO gross to 3500
pounds if you use their approval. The one hundred pound increase is not cumulative
though. If you already have tip tanks, the extra one hundred pounds is not added to
the tip tank increase. The allowable gross will still be the max allowed with the tips. I
do have the approval on my airplane. As you said, it is merely paper work.
For numbers 3, 4 and 5, I can only supply my impressions as I did not make accurate
comparisons. However, the acceleration has improved slightly, the climb is better and
the cruise is faster. How Much? I really can’t say about the takeoff distance or the rate
of climb except to say I seem to get to ten or twelve thousand now in about the same
time I formerly got to 8 to 10 thousand and the cruise is definitely at least ten knots
higher on about the same fuel. I feel that part of that increase in cruise is due to the
fact that I can now get my desired cruise power a couple of thousand feet higher than
I could before. I find that on any specific trip, my burnouts are the same or a smidgen
lower, but I am getting there quicker.

562
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

I like it and would do it again!

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001114 234631 msg16231.tex]

563
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

IO-550 Conversion
Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:48:05

In a message dated 11/28/00 3:00:21 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Does anybody have an STC for the straight installation of the IO-550 or a
TN-IO-550 in the J K M N P S models of the Bonanza line? Skip Weld

Good Afternoon Skip,

Beryl D’Shannon has the approval to install the IO-550 engine in everything from an
A35 on.
I believe they offer it in both the straight and crooked mounts for all of those except the
S. The S is approved only with the crooked mount. That was what they had from the
factory. I know it is available either way for the J through the P. If it is put in straight,
full throttle may not be used until the aircraft is at an altitude where full throttle will
only yield 285 HP. If it is mounted crooked, full throttle may be used all of the way
down to sea level.
Now, don’t ask me how I know, but I can assure you that the aircraft is easily controllable
at full throttle even at sea level. To my knowledge, TAT has no approvals for their Turbo
Normalizer on any straight mounted engine.
The RAJAY is approved on several straight engines, but I doubt if has been approved
on the 550. The TN that was sold a few years ago up in the Northwest may have been,
but the name escapes me, they are out of business and I doubt if it was approved on
the straight installations anyway.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001128 164805 msg16861.tex]

564
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

IO-550 Platinum Engine

Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:40:53

In a message dated 11/28/00 10:32:58 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 18:14:38 EST, [email protected] wrote:

Since your basic airplane came from the factory some four-hundred pounds
lighter than my V35B, it should run the pants off my old clunker!
Bob, is this the fundamental reason you have stated you’d like to find a P
and put a 550 in it?
Thanks.
-jts

Hi John,
That is a true statement!
Incidentally, I went to Mobile last week to fly home with a friend who had just had the
Platinum Continental engine installed in his V35B. His airplane has always been faster
than mine. When we both had IO-520s, he was about ten mph faster. Now that he has
the Platinum IO-550, he appears to be about 15 MPH faster than I am with a stock
IO-550.
We haven’t had a neck and neck flat out horserace yet. That will wait until his engine is
fully broken in, but I am really looking forward to it. In any case, his is a real screamer.
We were indicating 202 MPH at 4500 feet.
The lighter weight of the P model wouldn’t make a lot of difference in the true airspeed
to be developed down low and at maximum powers, but the light weight really pays off
with the higher climb rate and the ability to get fairly high cruise powers at the higher
altitudes.
The more I see of the IO-550, the more I like it. I just hope that Continental can get
their manufacturing problems straightened out. The problems such as George Bown has
had should not be occurring in this day and age.
When the time comes, stick a 550 in the nose of that P!
If it were mine, it would be stuck in straight, not crooked, but I have no data to show
whether that is a good idea or not!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001128 124053 msg16844.tex]

565
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

IO-550 or IO-520 for T-34?

Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:43:38

In a message dated 10/30/99 11:42:58 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Hello all: I’m in a partnership on a T-34 which we’re rebuilding and we’re
debating the 300 hp. IO550 vs. 285 hp. IO520 question right now. Does
anyone have any experience with both of these engines in a T-34? For the
extra 15 hp, do you gain a great deal of performance?

Good Afternoon Steve,

I have absolutely no experience operating a T-34 and it has been at least thirty to
thirty-five years since I even flew one. I will make a comment on the IO-550 compared
to an IO-520 though.
I don’t think a case can be made that installing the 550 over the 520 is financially viable.
Continental knows they have a good thing going and price it for all the market will bear!
Having said that, I am glad I popped for the 550 and would do it again!
I find that my average cruise speeds are about ten knots higher than they were with the
520 and my overall stage length burns are about the same or maybe even a little bit
less.
I don’t really know why this is so.
Fifteen horsepower doesn’t seem like it should make that much difference.
I remember when the IO-520 was installed in the first S35s, I was amazed at how much
better it performed than had the IO-470 powered P model. 25 additional horsepower
didn’t seem like it should make that much difference either, but it sure did!
The IO-470, IO-520 and IO-550 are all the same size and basically the same weight.
Many versions of the 470 are heavier than many versions of the 550.
The performance difference between an early lightweight airframe powered by an IO-470
and one powered by an IO-550 are nothing less than spectacular.
The ’big’ boys have always said: ”It’s the cubic inches that count!”
More cubes and the same or less weight! That’s hard to beat.
More power in the same space means more attention is required to cool it, but the
standard Beech baffling is so bad, that it is not harder to do better. I have the latest
style BDS baffling with a few changes that I think are minor improvements and cooling
has been no problem at all. When the 550 was first installed, it had the factory late
style model 36 baffles. That was better than the original V35B baffles, but not as good
as the present ones. I imagine whatever George Braly comes up with will be even better.

566
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

He is a T-34 nut so they should be available for that airframe as well.

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991030 154338 msg09895.tex]

567
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

IO-550 or IO-520 for T-34?

Sat, 30 Oct 1999 16:37:26

In a message dated 10/30/99 3:20:19 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

How’s your fuel burn with the 550 vs. the 520? One concern that we have
is that without taking the baggage space and turning it into an extra fuel
location, we’ll be much more limited in range.

Good Afternoon Steve,

If you fly at the same speeds flown with the smaller engine, I am confident you will burn
less fuel.
If I pull back to long range cruise, I get better than 140 knots at less than ten gallons
per hour. That is at least a half gallon per hour better than I did with the 520.
I have had some friends claim they burn as much as two gallons per hour less at the
same speeds previously flown.
I haven’t made any scientific evaluation, but I know my burn is at least a half gallon
per hour lower at the lower speeds and I think it is about one GPH lower in the 150 to
155 knot range.
You will burn substantially more fuel at full power though, horsepower doesn’t come
free! I have mine set up to flow about 28 to 29 GPH at full power and sea level.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991030 163726 msg09898.tex]

568
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

Leaning
Thu, 29 Jan 1998 10:17:27

Good Morning George Harrison,

In a message dated 98-01-29 09:39:04 EST, you write:

That aside, I guess a major part of the message here is to lean, at cruise,
no further than roughness, and then richen it a bit as with almost every
other engine.

With all due espect, I rather get the impression that you are missing the major point of
George Braly’s discussion.
The method you discuss is a serious compromise of the optimum possible operation of
the engine. It is used to advantage when running at high power settings with an engine
that has poor distribution so as to avoid operating with some cylinders at an excessively
high temperature while running lean enough on the richest to avoid significant power
loss.
I know from experience that George will explain it better. Read carefully and you will
be using the same operating procedures used by Charles A. Lindbergh on his epoch
flight across the North Atlantic and his subsequent ”good will” flights in addition to his
excellent training of WW II pilots in long range cruise techniques.
If you want an education in CYA written by the lawyers (other than George) obtain an
early copy of the original 1947 POH for the model 35. Read the leaning recommendations
therein and follow up by reading newer manuals every couple of years apart. The 1947
version is the most accurate.
Lindbergh and his contemporaries operated on the low power side but later airline
operations were conducted to great advantage at much higher power settings and George
is currently doing research at quite high powers settings for our chosen engine.
George Bralys information is the first authoritative and accurate presentation that I
have read of this subject since I was studying for my Flight Engineer Certificate in the
early fifties.
We have been inundated with false and inefficient information about how to operate our
engines for the last fifty years and many of those poor operation techniques have found
their way into what seems to be very authoritative publications.
Listen carefully to what George says!
He has historically correct information along with modern engineering knowledge to
evaluate and present the results.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator

569
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

[ARTICLES/19980129 101727 msg00629.tex]

570
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

Machen 350 Conversion

Wed, 17 Sep 1997 15:17:21

Howard
That airplane currently belongs to Jim Huff. I sent a message to Bill Hale about it.
Here is a copy—
Hi Bill,
I didn’t want to make my comment on the bulletin board because I haven’t flown the
Machen conversion, however I certainly agree with everything you say about the in-
stallation. The ones that I looked at have been real lousy. Poor layout to begin with
and crummy execution. I tend to agree with most of your observations on the tur-
boed Bonanzas. Every one that I have flown has seemed to have some pretty serious
deficiencies.
Each time I fly over those big hills west of you I get the urge to look into it again ’til I
look at one of the installations and then I change my mind.
Have you seen the installation that Jim Huff from Denton Texas has on his airplane (I
think it’s a V35 but I’m not sure)? It is the same Lycoming that is in the Duke. I don’t
know how much different that engine is than the one Machen uses but Jims looks real
nice. The cowling bumps are much less visible and the top cowl is a work of art. You
really wouldn’t spot it if you weren’t looking very close. The thing that brought my
attention to it was the belt driven generator up front. I walked over to look at that and
then saw that it was a Lycoming. I hadn’t even noticed the differences in the cowling
till that time!
The original job was done by Darryl Greenameyer (sp?) and his Lockheed buddies and
Jim has worked hard on the cosmetics. He claims 380 hp and tremendous performance.
I’ve seen it fly and it really goes. It is, of course, experimental and he has no other plans
for the airplane except to run around the country and enter races.
Incidentally he has a nice big Hartzell two blade prop on it. It is a sleeper. Three for
show, two for go!
See Ya,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970917 151721 msg01755.tex]

571
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Manually Adjustable Spark Advance

Sat, 22 Jan 2000 00:53:55

In a message dated 1/21/00 8:42:11 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Unfortunately, this kind of thing is extremely expensive to certify for an

aircraft engine. Like many other things, this is held back by FAA rules
which make it prohibitive to certify a technology that has been proven in
non-aviation uses over hundreds of millions of hours of use.

Good Evening Michael,

Just a comment! I do not have direct knowledge on this, but have been told that some
models of the OX-6 engine had manually adjustable spark. I asked one friend who flew
several OX-5 powered airplanes and it was his comment that he did not recall any OX-5s
equipped with such a device, but he too had heard of aircraft of the era which used it.
As I understand, it was very similar to the method used in Model T Fords and other
autos of the period. The R3350s we had in the Douglas DC-7s had a two position spark
advance which was actuated electrically by a simple switch. I can’t imagine that it
could be too difficult to get a simple manual system approved. I rather imagine it is the
automatic, complicated procedure of the electronic ignition system that is the cause of
all of the approval difficulties. Too bad no one is interested in a simple solution!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000122 005355 msg01261.tex]

572
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

Oil Consumption
Tue, 29 Dec 1998 21:10:45

In a message dated 12/29/98 5:50:06 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I thought this was a good thing ... but maybe not. Can you explain this?

Good Evening John,

It seemed in days past, when the Continentals burned a quart of oil every 6 to 10 hours
of operation, the cylinders easily made it to TBO. Around 1990 or so when they changed
something and all of a sudden the oil consumption dropped to a quart every 25 or 30
hours, the cylinders started to wear out in 300 to 600 hours of operation.
Personally. I would sooner add some oil than change the cylinders a couple of times
before TBO
One guys opinion!
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19981229 211045 msg07954.tex]

573
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Ram Air Inlet

Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:28:13

In a message dated 8/31/00 10:49:53 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

My neighbor has a Falcon, and by using a NAAC air inlet to his carb he
was able to increase his MP by about 2” at 2,000 feet.
I was wondering, ”Oh experts of Bonanza”, if a similar arrangement could
be developed for the E-225-8. I would route a hose to just behind the
air filter into the air box and use a manual butterfly valve to open it at
altitude. This would give me a 5 to 8% improvement in power at altitude.
Another thought would be to mechanically remove the filter assembly.
Just trying to figure out a way to improve the anemic climb at 10,000.
Mike McGahan - F 35

Good Afternoon Mike,

Mooney had an arrangement some years ago whereby they had a bypass which could
be operated from the cockpit. It supplied the engine with a straight unhindered ram
air supply and was said to gain almost an inch of ram air effect plus whatever efficiency
was gained by bypassing the filter.
It should have been capable of a couple of inches improvement. Does anyone have any
experience with that unit?
I know that we had no filters on the air that fed the R2800s on the DC-6 or the 3350s
on the DC-7, but I did lose an engine once on a DC-7 when a couple of Mallards ended
up in the intake.
I suppose if a Mallard decided to run into a Bonanza cowl just at the air intake it might
shut down a Bonanza engine, filter or no filter!
Sounds like a neat idea to me though.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000918 162813 msg13680.tex]

574
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

Slick vs. Bendix Mags

Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:35:31

Good Afternoon Chris,

In a message dated 98-07-22 14:53:07 EDT, you write:

The Bendix S-1200s are generally reputed to be one of the better unpres-
surized magnetors for high altitude flying, because of the large air gaps on
the distributor block, which helps prevents arcing at altitude.

Interestingly, my local accessory guru is of the same opinion. He also recommends the
Bendix over the Slick even though they do take more maintenance.
Different strokes for different folks!
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980722 153531 msg03841.tex]

575
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Slick vs. Bendix Mags

Sun, 4 Oct 1998 13:59:46

Good Afternoon All,

In a message dated 10/3/98 9:26:30 PM Central Daylight Time, George Braly writes:

The Bendix 1200 mags are truly the best mags available if the aircraft is
turbocharged. I have had a 1200 above 30,000’, and it was not arcing.
Rather remarkable.

Just a little additional recommendation for the 1200s.

I asked my local accessory guru about putting the Slick mags on my engine to avoid the
required 500 hour inspection and it was his recommendation to stick with the 1200s. He
says the larger size and greater space between components make for a lot less crossfire
problems even on my low altitude aircraft.
Incidentally, the amount mentioned for performing the required 500 hour inspection was
at least twice what I paid the last time it was performed and we are in a very high labor
cost area.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981004 135946 msg05773.tex]

576
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

Slick vs. Bendix Mags

Sun, 4 Oct 1998 17:14:51

Good Afternoon John,

In a message dated 10/4/98 3:05:02 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

However, for the E-series-powered subscribers among us, remember that

the 1200 is not an approved mag for our engines. I recently bought a
pair of Slicks for $660 (net the rebate (which took about six weeks) from
Unison) brand new from Mattituck. A pair of new Bendix mags is $2800
from TCM.

Good point, well made!

We switched our Husky towplane over to Slicks a couple of years ago and I plan on using
them for a 65 Continental that is on the slow path to recovery.
The Husky is doing just fine.
The price difference is extreme and I do like to support someone like Unison who is
trying to offer some competition. Glad to hear they are working well on the ”E” series
engines.
It seems there might be an advantage to the 1200s on the 520s and 550s, especially at
altitude.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19981004 171451 msg05775.tex]

577
4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Slick vs. Bendix Mags

Tue, 30 Jan 2001 19:46:24

In a message dated 1/30/01 6:29:44 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Yes. In all three cases, they were slick mags.

Good Evening George,

My local accessory Guru, Terry Norris of Aircraft Systems, Rockford, IL, says the same
thing. He feels that the Slicks are fine and very economical if you fly mainly down low,
but if any high altitude flight is anticipated, he recommends sticking with the much
larger Bendix mags, regardless of the additional maintenance they require.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010130 194624 msg02253.tex]

578
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.3. EQUIP-ENGINE

Straight Mount Engine Faster?

Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:29:04

In a message dated 1/13/01 5:59:30 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I can think of a theory as to why that [airplane with straight mount engine]
”might” be true, but I’m not just in love with the idea.
Do you have any thoughts?
Regards, George

Good Evening George,

None at all! At least, not of my own.
Every bit of information I have has been hearsay. One source was Allen Peterson. He
claimed that the straight mount would be faster because the tail feathers can be rigged
so that they will both fair with the straight installation, but will always be different, one
up, the other faired, when using the canted mount. He felt that the slip stream varied
with the different mounts.
I would just love to have the wherewithal to make the change each way on the same
airplane. I guess actual flight testing is really the only way to tell for sure.
If I were doing it on my own airplane, assuming I had a ”P” or earlier, I would do it
straight, just to lower the cost, unless I was convinced that it would be faster with the
engine crooked!
I don’t think the additional rudder pressure required would be significant at all.
I also think it would be kinda neat to have 300 horsepower in an airplane that had
the standard nose bowl and bugeye with the afterbody behind the prop. It would be
even better if it could use a two blade prop. What a sleeper that would be. It would
look just like the early lower powered Bonanzas! No one would ever suspect the kind of
performance it was capable of.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010113 192904 msg00875.tex]

579
4.4. EQUIP-ENGINEINSTRUMENTS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

4.4 EQUIP-ENGINEINSTRUMENTS

580
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.4. EQUIP-ENGINEINSTRUMENTS

Oil Preassure Gauge

Mon, 17 Apr 2000 17:38:15

In a message dated 4/17/00 3:14:09 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob, a related question. I’m planning on installing JPI’s Slimline oil pres-
sure gauge with annunicator. It is not STC’d, etc. Assuming I do not
remove the factory oil pressure gauge do I need more than a log entry for
a minor alteration? Does the FAA need be involved?
Thanks.

Good Evening John,

Always a tough call. I would consider it a minor alteration that thus requires only a
log book entry, but many IAs and FAA personnel disagree. Most FAA inspectors will
state that even if it is a minor alteration, a 337 should be submitted so as to provide
a document that will stay with the aircraft records. If it were me, I would file the 337.
You should ask the advice of the IA who will be signing for the next annual.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000417 173815 msg06561.tex]

581
4.5. EQUIP-ENGINEMONITOR CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

4.5 EQUIP-ENGINEMONITOR

582
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.5. EQUIP-ENGINEMONITOR

CHT Replacement
Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:59:33

In a message dated 11/10/00 9:13:57 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

What is absurd is the fact that the new JPI has to be 1000 times more
accurate than the original CHT. If the feds really want to help, why don’t
they allow the replacement of an ancient piece of equipment like this? I
would think a good person like Janet Reno would favor this.

Good Morning Jim,

It can be done, IF someone is willing to spend the money. Getting an approval is a long
and lengthy process. The lawyers of our nation have seen to that.
You MAY be able to get a local approval, but even that is not cheap if you pay the
person who files the paper work a reasonable wage to do it. Not every mechanic is
willing to spend the time and effort that is required. On top of that, a local approval
is done at the discretion of your local FAA inspector. Regardless of the validity of your
data or the practicality of the installation, the inspector has no obligation to issue the
approval. It his prerogative to do so, but not his obligation. If any litigation ensues due
to the approval, he/she will be held personally responsible, NOT the FAA.
I checked the JPI and Electronics International web sites and could not find any approved
CHT gauges. Electronics International does have other instruments, including EGTs,
that are approved, but they did not list for which airplanes they hold approval.
If you can find any appliance listed in the aircraft’s Type Certificate Data Sheet, it may
be installed and utilized via an entry by an authorized person, usually an A or P rated
mechanic as appropriate, in the ships papers.
If you can find the unit you want to use for which the manufacturer, or someone else,
has obtained an STC which lists your aircraft as being approved for that unit, you can
have it installed by an authorized person. That person will file a 337 listing the STC
number and the work performed. The 337 will float right through your FSDO with
little or no trouble. An A&P mechanic can perform the work and it must be checked for
conformity to the STC by an authorized person, usually a mechanic who holds Inspection
Authorization.
Should you happen to find an appliance which would do the job for you and which is
approved on a similar aircraft, but not on yours, that would be an excellent candidate
for a local approval.
Once again, that is done at the discretion of a local FAA inspector and it helps to have
a mechanic who is familiar with the local inspectors and how they like to do things.
If the local folks don’t want to tackle the approval, you can submit it to FAA engineering
and, depending on your political skills and affiliations, you may get it approved in a year

583
4.5. EQUIP-ENGINEMONITOR CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

or two.
As I said before, I would call around to the various instrument manufacturers and solicit
their advice. I think you can find everything you need except the CHT at Electronics
International. Who knows, they may even have an approval for that or be able to find
a 337 that someone else has used for a local approval. Such data will often be accepted
by a local inspector as the required substantiating data for a local approval.
The first step for a local approval is to locate an A&P/IA who has some experience with
local approvals and be willing to pay for his/her time while working on the approval.
Good Luck!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001110 105933 msg16017.tex]

584
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.6. EQUIP-ESERIES

4.6 EQUIP-ESERIES

585
4.6. EQUIP-ESERIES CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Beech Electric Prop

Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:08:52

Good Evening George Vasick,

In a message dated 98-06-11 20:00:15 EDT, you write:

Can somebody explain how an electric prop works.

It Works Great!

I assume there is an electric motor somewhere that controls the pitch. If it

is located in the hub, what sort of connection is used to power the motor?

The Beech Roby prop used on the Bonanza and other airplanes of the era is an inflight
adjustable pitch propellor. The pitch is changed by rotating a ring gear on the aft side
of the propellor which moves the associated mechanism for and aft via a slip ring or
bearing thus changing the pitch of the blades.
Some of them used a hand crank connected to a shaft which extended into the cockpit
to move the ring gear and others used a small electric motor mounted on or near the
ring gear to make it move.
The early Bonanzas used the motor mounted on the engine case with a short shaft to
the gear which rotated the ring gear. The later ones used a motor mounted on the ring
gear mount. many of the early airplanes had the later style motor retrofitted.
I have never seen a Bonanza with the ”window crank” in the cockpit to control the pitch
but it could be done! That arrangement was common on the Cessnas, Fairchilds, Culver
Vs and other aircraft which used the prop.
As used in the Bonanza, it was not uncommon for an aftermarket electronic constant
speed unit to be installed and that unit was offered as a factory option shortly after it
came on the market. It consists of a device to measure the RPM and a controller to
adjust the electric motor to control the pitch and therefore the RPM.
The unit worked very well but would not activate until the RPM was 20 revolutions
off of that set. There is a new solid state replacement that works very well. It is more
reliable and faster acting.
The ability to turn the constant speed function off and use the prop in the fixed position
was very helpful in the leaning and engine evaluation process in the days before we had
the accurate engine indication systems we enjoy today.
There were no other adjustable pitch propellers available for engines of the Bonanza type
and the Beech engineers designed the mechanism but had it manufactured by others.
That was another one of the little design details that set the Bonanza so far ahead of
the rest of the field.
Happy Skies,

586
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.6. EQUIP-ESERIES

Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator

[ARTICLES/19980611 210852 msg03068.tex]

587
4.6. EQUIP-ESERIES CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Engine
Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:41:41

In a message dated 4/28/99 5:50:24 AM Central Daylight Time, curry [email protected]

writes:

does anyone with an e-225 fly at an RPM greater than 2300? What is the
basis for that restriction anyway...anyone know?????
bob

Good Morning Bob,

I certainly don’t have an engineering knowledge that would form the basis for an expert
opinion.
However, that never seems to stop me from making my opinion known and here goes!
The E225 is a development of the E165 which was originally designed for the original
Bonanza. The design criteria was that it would have a maximum allowable RPM of 2050.
When the 165 ponies just didn’t seem enough for the Mighty Bonanza, they decided to
wind it up to 2300 so as to get 185 for one minute but then quickly backed it down to
2050.
It then continued on through the various iterations of the E-series until it was finally
wound up sufficiently to produce a whopping 225 HP.
That engine was so highly stressed and pushed to it’s limit that Continental decided
to make a beefier version of the same basic size, 471 cubic inches, and thus came the
venerable O470. No more cubes and little or no more RPM depending on the dash
number, but with a lot more aluminum and steel, some 60 to 80 pounds more.
There must be a reason Continental decided to add all of that weight other than to
provide forward ballast for we old Bonanza drivers.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990428 104141 msg04093.tex]

588
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.6. EQUIP-ESERIES

PS5C Pressure Carb

Fri, 21 Aug 1998 17:07:29

Good afternoon Dwaine, Ron and Whoever,

In a message dated 98-08-21 11:40:17 EDT, Dwaine wrote:

However George doesn’t have GAMIs for the injected E-225, already asked.

I am sure you are all aware that the PS5C is a pressure injection carburetor and not
a float unit. It measures the various air pressures and injects the fuel into the intake
manifold at the downstream end of the unit, the top of the PS5C. Those little copper
tubes that diffuse the fuel into the air stream can be cleaned and checked for ”proper”
alignment. Sometimes it helps.
Back in the days when I was flying PS5C equipped airplanes, I found that some of them
had tremendously equal fuel distribution and others were horrible! By messing around
with the fuel tubes and the inlet pipes leading to the PS5C I was often, but not always,
able to get the distribution good enough to run smooth substantially on the lean side of
best power. We didn’t have all of these fancy gauges then so it was very much a hit or
miss, trial and error process.
I found that some of the engines had better distribution with wide open throttle (en-
richment valve full open) and with others it was better if I would throttle back until I
could just percieve a small drop in manifold pressure. That would be the point at which
the enrichment valve was closed. On still others it helped to just crack the alternate
air valve open. I guess what I am trying to say is that there is a very large difference
between individual airplanes with the PS5C and I am not sure just going to GAMIs
would solve all of the induction problems if one has a PS5C equipped airplane with poor
distribution.
Let’s face it, If a float type carburetor will do the job - Great! If the PS5C does the job
- Super! There is no magic about putting fuel injection on the engine. It is just another,
and rather expensive, method of sending fuel to the engine. If you don’t need it, don’t
use it.
Ron mentoned that the older cylinders are manufactured with provision to install the
fuel injection nozzles.
That is not quite the way I remember it!
Those holes were put there to accomodate the priming of the engine. A couple of intelli-
gent souls thought about just pumping fuel through them continuously as an emergency
source of power should something happen to block the normal flow of fuel.
If the airplane was equipped with the electric priming pump, it was a snap to supply
a steady flow of fuel with the primer and the throttle was adjusted to provide smooth
power. All of a sudden, the engine had a backup method of suppying fuel.

589
4.6. EQUIP-ESERIES CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Continental and some of the others heard about it and decided there was a good possibil-
ity of adapting that emergency procedure as a relatively economical method of constant
flow intake manifold fuel injection. And so we have the current Continental fuel injection
system.
At least that is the way I remember it!!
Just felt like rambling a bit!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19980821 170729 msg04695.tex]

590
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.6. EQUIP-ESERIES

PS5C Pressure Carb - Fuel Flow Measurements

Sat, 6 Sep 1997 09:18:52

The problem is with The PS5C pressure Carburetor. The fuel is distributed through a
set of nozzles which are internal to the carb. They are in the top of the unit right where
it attaches to the manifold. It would be necessary to figure out how to measure the flow
between the time that it leaves the metering area and the place where it is delivered to
the distribution nozzles. Maybe it has been done.
I have not checked with any of the manufacturers but I haven’t found it in any of the
literature that I have.
A way to accomplish the desired result would be to measure the fuel (install a transducer)
in the line feeding the carb and then install another transducer in the fuel return line
and electronically subtract that amount from the inflow. I don’t think any one has done
that but I could be wrong.
Any engine which has a fuel injection system which uses a distributer block seperate
from the fuel metering unit (and I think all of them do) is a piece of cake. Engines with
a float type carburetor will work with the fuel flow unit but the instantaneous flows may
be slightly inaccurate as the float adjusts the flow into the bowl. They do just fine on
overall burn. My youngest son has an electronic digital fuel flow unit on his Beech 18
with float carburetors and it seems to work quite well.
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970906 091852 msg01666.tex]

591
4.6. EQUIP-ESERIES CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

PS5C Pressure Carb Icing

Wed, 31 Jan 2001 00:44:34

In a message dated 1/30/01 10:43:16 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Is it possible for a Bendix pressure carb to ice up?

Good Evening Frank,

Not in the same sense as a venturi carburetor will ice. The intake filter may ice over
and that is why we have the alternate air source. I have never had an icing problem
with the PS5C as installed in the Bonanza.
I have experienced throttle plate icing with a pressure carburetor which did not have
any induction air filter. The intake air went directly to the carburetor, kinda like it
would if you equipped your airplane with that ram air system to bypass the air filter.
Throttle plate icing is where the ice comes from the high moisture content and low
temperature air that is entering the intake. It is kinda like freezing rain hitting the
throttle plate and the plate gets frozen in position or, at least, is hard to move. With
an engine that is prone to throttle plate icing, the drill is to change the throttle setting
every few minutes to make sure the throttle is free. If it gets hard to move, you lay
on the carb heat till it is freed up. The ice is considered to be impact ice, just like
that which forms on the wings. It isn’t caused by a pressure drop in the intake system,
though that effect can be contributory to some small degree.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010131 004434 msg02300.tex]

592
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.6. EQUIP-ESERIES

PS5C Pressure Carb - Leaning for Takeoff and Climb

Wed, 3 Sep 1997 08:46:06

The unit installed on the H35 was an altitude compensating pressure carburetor generally
referred to as the PS5C with AMC (Automatic Mixture Control ). Previous to the ”H”
all Bonanzas had a standard PS5C pressure carb.
The unit seemed to either work great or not at all. A high percentage of them were
replaced with fuel injection which became available a year later. I have even been told
that some people either had the AMC unit removed or deactivated though I have no
personal knowledge of how to go about that.
If you are very sensitive to engine operation you can ascertain how yours is working by
observation of the sound and feel of combustion, the amount of soot on the stacks or
the condition of the spark plugs.
If it’s running too rich for high altitude takeoffs, it can be leaned. I personally wouldn’t
lean to best power but to somewhat rich of best power mixture. Just so long as the
engine is running smooth. You still MAY need some extra fuel for cooling. The same
thing goes for climb.
That is of course ancient technology. The modern and much easier procedure (though
more expensive) is to install a good six cylinder EGT. I can’t seem to find any data in
my files which will tell me if any of the good digital fuel flow units will work with that
carb (and it is too early in the morning to call) but if one is available that would be
good too.
Some of those AMC equipped airplanes have been working just fine for forty years (if it
ain’t broke don’t fix it?) but it would be nice to have the engine analysis capability of
modern technology.
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970903 084606 msg01633.tex]

593
4.6. EQUIP-ESERIES CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Primer
Fri, 13 Nov 1998 07:42:39

Good Morning Ron Davis,

That was an excellent description of the primer system as applied to the E series engines.
I agree with Lew Gage and you, that it really isn’t needed.
If the hand wobble pump and the PS5C are in proper working order and the operation
is understood by the pilot, the primer system is totally superfluous.
In a message dated 11/12/98 11:12:54 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

Apparently Continental thought that this might be necessary to help start

it in colder weather, but that has not turned out to be the case.

I think it was more a matter of Beech and Continental responding to the requests of
individuals who just plain insisted that a primer capability be put on the engine!
One of the early indications that the pump or PS5C is in need of maintenance is the
loss of full priming capability. Adding a primer just masks the problem.
The important thing is that the priming via the wobble pump and PS5C is best done
while the engine is cranking, not before. The rate and amount of priming is a function
of how the wobble pump is handled by the operator.
I never experienced any problems starting a properly maintained E series engine in the
cold country in the fifteen or so years that I owned them, or on the occasions since then,
when the opportunity has been available to fly one.
Great posting!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981113 074239 msg06888.tex]

594
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.6. EQUIP-ESERIES

Prop
Thu, 29 Apr 1999 06:34:16

In a message dated 4/28/99 11:07:38 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Don’t forget, the E185-11 uses an 88” prop, and the E225-8 uses an 84”
prop.

Good Morning Ron,

All of what you say about the E-225 seems proper to me, but I would like to add one
thing that has surprised me.
The E-225s all came from Beech with an 84 inch prop installed and I went along for
years thinking that was the only length blade approved. A few years ago I noted that
the 88 inch blades are also approved for the Bonanza with an E-225.
I am sure it would be noisier, but do believe the initial acceleration, takeoff and climb
performance will be better with the longer blades. It might lose a knot or two at top
speed.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990429 063416 msg04130.tex]

595
4.6. EQUIP-ESERIES CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Prop - Which One?

Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:40:33

Good Morning Dwaine,

In a message dated 10/20/98 12:35:00 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

I have done some research on this subject and I have yet to find anyone
who has flown with both props on their personnel (read that out of their
own hip pocket) airplanes that will prefer the electric prop.

I guess I fit in the category of never having owned the late model Hartzell on an E
engine but it came pretty close. My number two son had one on an A35 which I flew
and maintained.
It worked very well and I particularly liked the ability to get rated power on the initial
roll.
The negatives were the requirement for a governor on an already crowded rear case and
such plus the extra care it takes to properly maintain the Hartzell as you mentioned in
your message. I always felt the airplane performed better with the Beech unit but never
had the opportunity to make any comparison checks.
The feature that I like best about the electric prop is the ability to operate it in manual
mode. Only one of my Bonanzas with the electric prop even had the constant speed
attachment (CSU) and I became very comfortable controlling the RPM with my thumb.
The electric eye controlled unit could wander a bit, especially on takeoff. I understand
that the new solid state devices control the RPM much better, but I have never flown
one. I never used the CSU for takeoff.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981020 094033 msg06130.tex]

596
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.6. EQUIP-ESERIES

Prop - Which one?

Mon, 19 Oct 1998 20:39:14

Good Evening Scott,

In a message dated 10/19/98 5:14:08 PM Central Daylight Time, sderrick@yahoo-
eng.com writes:

Are there any other prop/hub combinations available for the E225-8 than
the 2 bladed Hartzell with AD 97-18-02?

My feelings coincide with those of John. I like the Beech electric with the full 88
inch blades best of all for an E series engine. The only performance rub is the lack of
maximum horsepower availability at static. If the propeller is properly set up, you won’t
get rated RPM until 60 mph or greater (depends on whether you have a constant speed
prop control or just the straight manual setup). The other problem is one of cost. Parts
are very high and hard top come by. As others have said, it is a very highly stressed
part and deserving of careful consideration.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981019 203914 msg06114.tex]

597
4.6. EQUIP-ESERIES CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Thompson Fuel Pump

Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:47:03

In a message dated 8/12/99 10:23:36 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Has anyone actually flown the Bonanza’s on the hand pump?? can it be
done and for how long?

Good Morning B Kehler,

Been there, done that!
I lost fuel pressure twice right after rotation, the first time was before I had retracted
the gear and the second time I had just reached for the gear switch when the engine
quit. In neither case was there sufficient runway left for a successful landing.
In both cases, I had the original vertical style of pump (it was in Straight 35s) and that
is a little harder to actuate than the later ones.
I settled a bit during the time it took to change hands on the control column and get
my left hand to pumping, but the engine came back to life and allowed me to clear the
obstacles ahead with aplomb. It was much easier in the one where I had the gear up!
I found that at takeoff power, I had to pump pretty hard, (which adrenaline had me
doing) but once I was up to pattern altitude and reduced power, the fuel pressure was
fairly easy to maintain with a slow steady action on the pump.
The first time it happened to me, I was pretty busy, the second time was a snap.
I had been told previously that at the normal 185 horsepower for takeoff, the early
pump, such as I had on that airplane, would provide adequate fuel, BUT if one was
operating an E225 or E205 at the full rated power of the engine, the early pump would
not provide enough fuel. That is one of the reasons that the higher power of the E205
and E225 engines is not allowed on takeoff.
If one was operating at those higher (illegal) powers on a straight 35, the recommendation
was to reduce the RPM to 2300 or 2050 and then start pumping.
With the later hinged handle pump, one is supposed to be able to supply adequate fuel
for those more powerful engines, but I have never had to do it!
Overall, the pump does what it is designed to do and it isn’t difficult. However, I would
add one of the aftermarket electric back up pumps that are now available.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990812 124703 msg06889.tex]

598
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.7. EQUIP-FUEL

4.7 EQUIP-FUEL

599
4.7. EQUIP-FUEL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Bladders
Sat, 17 Mar 2001 10:53:01

In a message dated 3/17/01 9:18:45 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob, if I’m reading my Shop Manual correctly for my J35 with 20-gallon
tanks, on p. 2-240 it gives a PN of 35-921218-5 (LH) & 35-921218-6 (RH);
but it doesn’t say if they’re baffled or not. I guess I could run a tank dry
and reach in there and feel around, but even if it has baffled tanks now, but
was not built with them, when I replace them, I wouldn’t necessarily have
to install baffled tanks, right? How can I find out if it was built without
baffled tanks?

Good Morning Jerry,

To my knowledge, no one has been stupid enough to install the baffles in a twenty gallon
tank. I suppose that some after market fuel tank supplier might have done it just to see
if he could, but I don’t know of any.
The factory didn’t start putting the baffles in until they were well into the 40 gallon
tank airplanes.
My son’s S35 has the unbaffled tanks and I can assure you that if they are ever replaced,
it will be with unbaffled tanks. If my 1978 V35B was legal with the unbaffled tanks, I
would install them right now!
Your J35 might even have the old original natural rubber tanks. I think those are the
best tanks Beech ever used! They will last forever, provided that they are kept full of
fuel or properly treated if left to stand for a long period of time. The biggest problem
that I have seen with airplanes of that vintage is corrosion around the inside of the tank
cavity in the wing. There can be some troubles with the nipples getting hard and being
damaged when attempting to remove the drain valve. If you do have to remove the tank
for some reason, be sure to properly correct the corrosion problem.
I have never seen one that was so bad that it required anything more than a good
cleaning and some Alumaprep followed by Alodine and paint, but many are marginal.
The early tanks are generally easily repaired as required.
Some of the later 40 gallon tanks were junk. They are made of lighter weight material
and I am generally biased toward light weight, but there are limits!
I am reasonably confident that your tanks do not contain baffles!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010317 105301 msg06055.tex]

600
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.7. EQUIP-FUEL

Fuel Bladders
Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:06:13

In a message dated 11/7/99 11:51:51 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I disagree about preventative replacement; like vacuum pumps, some blad-

ders seem to go many, many years while others fail early. I wouldn’t fix
one that isn’t leaking yet, especially considering it will cost about the same
whether you do them both together or one at a time.

Good Morning Mark and All,

While I certainly do not consider myself a fuel bladder expert, my experience has been
more along the line that Mark has suggested.
The very early 20 gallon tanks installed from 1947 to who knows when were natural
rubber and many of them are still doing fine!
There was a spate of fuel bladder failures among the early forty gallon units, but that
seemed to be among those made by one company more than another. I don’t have access
to the records right now and can’t remember whether it was U. S. Rubber or Goodyear
that was the culprit, but think it was one or the other. I’m sure someone on the list can
help us out with that information.
One friend has a J35 that still has the original tanks. There are a few wrinkles in the
bottom of the tank that we have never been able to get out, but no leaks and no flaking.
Another friend has an H35 that developed leaks a few years ago. The thing that amazed
me was the amount of corrosion we found beneath the tank! Fortunately, with a lot of
work, it cleaned up OK.
I have never worked on a 25 gallon tank, therefore, no direct experience with those and
I have never had a ten gallon aux out of the airplane!
My own V35B is 21 years old now, so far no leaks, though I am getting nervous!
Most experts feel that keeping the tanks full whenever possible will add to the life of
the tank and I am sure that can’t hurt.
Carl Hartwig of Aircraft Fuel Cell Repair, Eagle River Wisconsin, says that he finds
many tanks that only leak when they are full and the leaks are in the top of the tank!
I have worried about that in the past as I do not make a practice of filling the airplane
after each flight. I normally try to have a couple of hours of fuel on board in case the
need arises for a short trip, but I normally just add fuel based on the length of the flight
and the payload to be carried. If I ever planned to let the airplane sit for a couple of
weeks or more, I think I would try to fill the tanks though.
My totally unscientific and incomplete evaluation is that if they are used regularly and

601
4.7. EQUIP-FUEL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

filled full every month or so, all except those poorly built early forties will last almost
indefinitely!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991108 110613 msg10308.tex]

602
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.7. EQUIP-FUEL

Fuel Cell Service Advice

Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:50:10

Good Afternoon William S. Helfand,

In a message dated 98-08-19 12:09:02 EDT, you write:

Anyone have a recommendation as a source for remanufactured fuel cells?

I need to replace one?

Very definetly!
I highly recommend the Hartwig family of Eagle River Wisconsin.
Try them at:
Aircraft Fuel Cell Repair 300 Airport Road Eagle River, WI 54521
Phone: 800 437-8732 715 479-8732 FAX: 715 479-6344
Very nice people with fast and courteous service combined with an excellent product
and fair pices
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980819 135010 msg04543.tex]

603
4.7. EQUIP-FUEL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Fuel Flow Calibration

Mon, 6 Sep 1999 08:55:16

In a message dated 9/6/99 2:36:10 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Bob,
I don’t think that there is any equipment needed to calibrate the JPI fuel
flow. I recently installed one in my M35 and all that is required is to record
the fuel added and compare that with the fuel used in according to the JPI.
With that data you can adjust the JPI K factor until you get the same fuel
added as fuel used.
Fuel flow would then be correct.
Procedure is explained in the owners manual.
Cheers, Ralph

Good Morning Ralph,

Yes, that is the method I have always used, but there is a device mentioned in the
maintenance manual which would allow calibration without the necessity of flight.
The Shadin unit that was installed by Colemill when I had the Starfire conversion
installed in my Bonanza was about six percent off when received. Colemill set up the
fuel control based on that indication, not the fuel pressure as they should have. On my
first takeoff, the EGTs were much higher than expected and the head temps started to
rise. By using the boost pump, I was able to get enough fuel into the thing to bring the
temps down, but the first thing I did when I got home was to increase the fuel pressures
to where they should have been set. Had the calibration been done before flight, the
error would have been found. Of course, if the fuel pressure would have been set with
the proper pressure gauges as Continental specifies, there wouldn’t have been a problem
either!
If the fuel flow gauge is set by recording the amount of fuel used in the manner suggested
by JPI, the accuracy of the fuel dispensing device used to fuel the airplane and the
consistency of the fueling method can become a factor. The fuel dispensing equipment
at our little field is only four years old and we have it inspected by the state division of
weights and measures as required. It is not unusual for it to be four or five percent in
error when tested. I have noted that when I run a tank dry, then have it filled at various
FBOs around the country, there are often substantial differences in the amount of fuel
recorded as being put in the tank.
This problem first came to my attention when I had a D18 many years ago which was
equipped with 25 gallon aux tanks. I ran those dry almost every trip. The amount of
fuel that it took to fill those tanks varied from 23 to 27 gallons at different places around
the country!

604
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.7. EQUIP-FUEL

Since that time, I have been suspicious of any fueling quantities when fueling has done
using equipment that has not been recently calibrated. I do think that modern equip-
ment is more accurate and reliable than was true in those days of yore, but it still can
be a problem!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990906 085516 msg07949.tex]

605
4.7. EQUIP-FUEL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Fuel Injector Nossles - Balancing

Sat, 22 Jan 2000 15:13:51

In a message dated 1/22/00 1:24:30 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

”I’m still not certain, but the issue is murky enough that I’d rather have
the STC and prevent some ignorant FAA Inspector from filing a violation.-
John Deakin”
Come on now... How would even a knowledgeable FAA Inspector know
that you had messed with the injectors?

Good Afternoon Cy,

Well, let’s just do a little hypothesizing! Suppose some individual decided to illegally
take some nozzles out of the tolerance specified by TCM. (I don’t know how it would
work on the 470, but on the 520 and 550, the flow has to be well out of the factory
tolerance to attain satisfactory fuel balance). Wouldn’t most of us want to mark those
nozzles in some manner to show that there were differences and to assure that if they
were ever removed, they would be placed back in the cylinders in a manner that preserved
the proper balance?
If there was an incident with the airplane, the engine would likely be sent to a competent
authority for tear down inspection. Now let’s suppose that you were the competent
authority assisting the FEDs in that inspection. Don’t you think you might notice any
unusual markings on the nozzles?
If there had been an engine problem that could have been caused by very bad distribu-
tion, isn’t there a possibility that you would flow check the nozzles? Now if the nozzles
were checked and two of them showed much higher than specified flows, two were way
below and two were right on, wouldn’t you look rather closely?
The worse thing that could happen to an engine with injectors that provide a well
balanced fuel flow is for some unsuspecting mechanic to have an occasion to clean those
nozzles and not be aware of the different flow rates installed. If the high flow nozzle
were to be placed in a cylinder that needed the low flow ones and vice versa, bad things
are possible!
I think the money spent for an STCd version is worth it just for the peace of mind of
legality.
The way I read the Continental fuel injection maintenance manual, all of the nozzles in
any one engine must be of the same type and designation, if I find that a nozzle does
not meet specs, I must reject it. Period!! If anyone has a mechanic who is willing to sign
off on maintenance done otherwise. That is that mechanics business, but I won’t do it!
Happy Skies,

606
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.7. EQUIP-FUEL

Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000122 151351 msg01321.tex]

607
4.7. EQUIP-FUEL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Fuel Tank Baffle

Sun, 30 Apr 2000 14:44:49

In a message dated 4/30/00 12:10:49 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

This suggests that the baffle is far inboard and therefore not visible by
looking in the filler cap. Is this so?
Alan

Good Afternoon Alan,

While I certainly encourage all operators to comply with all government regulations,
this is one of those ADs that, to my way of thinking, has very little affect on the way
prudent pilots operate their airplane.
Aerobatic airplanes are often built with fuel cells which have numerous outlet ports
to help prevent unporting. Unfortunately, multiple outlets alone often don’t solve the
problem. Some of the outlets placed in odd corners of the tank can be unported during
normal maneuvers and allow air into the system. Header tanks, one way check valves,
flop tubes and other devices have been tried with various degrees of success to avoid
interrupting the fuel supply to the engine when the aircraft is in an unusual attitude.
The easiest way to avoid an undesired tank outlet unporting is to avoid unusual attitudes
with low fuel.
The potential for unporting a wing tank is not peculiar to the Bonanza. It can happen in
any airplane that is flown outside the designer’s planned envelope. When the Bonanza
was designed, it was not anticipated that anyone would want to fly the airplane in a
prolonged slip or skid and certainly they did not plan on folks making high speed turning
type takeoffs.
If there is a good operational reason for doing such things, it would seem that any
reasonably competent aviator should be able to figure which tank would have more fuel
piled up against the outlet and which will have less.
If one intends to initiate a prolonged slip, the feed should come from the tank that is
away from the direction of slip.
If the aircraft is to be flown in a skid, or a turning style takeoff is anticipated, the fuel
should come from the tank on the inside of the turn.
These facts are true for all aircraft.
The Bonanza has one of the best fuel systems available. They flew for years without
those baffles and had very little trouble. No more than any other airplane equipped
with wing tanks.
I personally prefer the unbaffled tanks. There have been service difficulties with some of

608
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.7. EQUIP-FUEL

the early baffled types and they weigh more and cost more than the unbaffled ones. The
baffled tanks also hold less fuel. One of the early efforts to hold some fuel around the
outlet port during oddball maneuvering involved placing a sponge like material in the
tank to keep the fuel from sloshing. The material crumbled and fouled the fuel system!
If you still have tanks which do not have the baffles and they are not leaking or otherwise
giving you trouble, don’t worry about it. Just fly the airplane in a normal coordinated
manner and don’t use a slip unless you are assured of landing. I don’t slip my Bonanza
any time other than when I am in the final stages of a crosswind landing. I prefer to
hold the crab until I am about to flare at which time I drop the wing and establish a slip
down to the landing. If the engine quits then (and I don’t think it is likely to happen),
who cares?
If I owned an airplane that was legal without the baffles, that is what I would install as
a replacement.
The pertinent ADs are 70-03-05 and 72-11-02.
Neither of these requires the installation of baffled tanks in any airplane that was origi-
nally manufactured and approved without them. You may have to stick a few placards
around the cockpit which tell you to do things that most aviators will do anyway. I liken
it to the recent AD which requires that we have a placard to tell us that we should have
the tank selector in the detent if we want it to feed properly.
Much ado about nothing!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000430 144449 msg07344.tex]

609
4.7. EQUIP-FUEL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Fuel Tank Selector Valve Location

Thu, 4 Feb 1999 01:02:37

Good Evening Ron Davis,

If we are ruminating about why the fuel selector valve is located where it is, don’t forget
that it was combined with the fuel pump and strainer in order to save weight. Saving
weight was the key ingredient that made the Bonanza what it is.
Placing it by the left side of the cockpit made it easy to stroke the fuel pump with the
left hand while playing with the rest of the starting paraphernalia with the right. I agree
with you that the rest of fuel valve components were easy to connect in that location as
well.
I find it to be an excellent location, easy to select and operate, but it does require that
you be able to do it by memory and feel, not by looking at the valve. With the original
vertical pump and valve combination, it was actually a little easier to see the valve
position, but there were many other less desirable features associated with that unit.
Enough wandering thought for now.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990204 010237 msg01900.tex]

610
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.7. EQUIP-FUEL

Fuel cells
Sun, 28 Dec 1997 17:04:29

Good Afternoon Larry Robbins,

In a message dated 97-12-28 08:06:07 EST, you write:

What has the group found to be an average life (TBO if you will) of these
bladder tanks, understanding this is directly dependent on prior care?

Just a couple of comments. I am not an expert on fuel cells and have never personally
changed one though I have observed the operation a few times.
It seems that the early 20 gallon fuel cells last forever if they are not allowed to sit dry
without coating with oil. While it would seem that they would last best if kept full of
fuel, I have been told that they will do fine as long as there is some fuel in the tank
though the best of all is for an unused tank to be drained and the inside coated with oil.
The newer tanks, especially the early 40 gallon cells appear to be junk. Ten to twelve
year life with neglect and eighteen to twenty years with good care.
The newest ones appear to be a little better but not as good as the old (butyl rubber?)
20 gallon cells.
The forty gallon cells with baffles cost twice as much as the unbaffled ones and hold
about one half gallon less fuel. I can’t see why anyone with an airplane that came with
the unbaffled cells would ever stick a baffled one in as a replacement but it is legal and
a lot of people do so.
The only people that need the baffles are those who insist on slipping, skidding and
making high speed turning style takeoffs while feeding on the outside tank!
Unfortunately, we who have airplanes that came from the factory with baffled tanks
have to use them to be legal.
Of the tank rebuilders with whom I have spoken, I am most impressed with Aircraft
Fuel Cell Repair of Eagle River Wisconsin, (800) 437-6344, and everyone that I know
who has used them have been happy with the price, product and service.
Give them a call and pick their brains!
Hope that helps some.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19971228 170429 msg02941.tex]

611
4.7. EQUIP-FUEL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Hand Wobble Pump - Switching Tanks

Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:32:28

In a message dated 9/21/00 11:20:39 PM Central Daylight Time, curry [email protected]

writes:

some of the older models do not have electric fuel pumps...so, is there a
problem running them dry?????

Good Evening Bob,

The hand wobble pump works just fine. Most of the time it really isn’t needed, but it
gives the pilot something to do while he/she waits for the engine to restart. If a close
watch is kept on the fuel pressure gauge, the tank can generally be switched before the
engine misses a beat.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000922 003228 msg13872.tex]

612
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.7. EQUIP-FUEL

Leaking Quick Drain

Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:13:19

In a message dated 11/2/99 9:58:59 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

a Curtis drain

Good Morning John,

Curtis is a manufacturer of drain valves. I believe all of the ones used by Beech on
the Bonanza series of aircraft are manufactured by them, but I am not certain of that
information.
The reference to a ”Curtis Valve” in regard to various fuel drains on aircraft has become
generic.
The ”twist and push to drain” valves on the main wing tanks of our aircraft are a Curtis
valve which is held to the fuel tank via a clamp on a rubber nipple and they cannot be
serviced without removing them from the rubber nipple. Not an easy job and it often
results in damage to the tank, especially on older fuel cells.
The one located under your fuel valve, lower left side of the fuselage, is a Curtis valve
that screws into the receptacle and is easy to remove for service or replacement. The
Hartwig/Eagle Fuel Cells device will provide a fitting that will eliminate the rubber
nipple and allow a screw type drain valve to be installed. I think they are planning on
using the smaller ”almost flush” type such as are commonly used on the late BDS tip
tanks.
Does that help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991102 111319 msg10028.tex]

613
4.7. EQUIP-FUEL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Locking Fuel Tank Caps

Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:04:29

In a message dated 1/13/00 4:41:50 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Thanks for yor info but they don’t have it. If you have any other contact
please let me know
Regards,
Sebastian Diaz

Good Evening Sebastian,

You can obtain a nice set of locking fuel tank caps from Aviation Research Systems,
Inc., Sandy River Airport, 42313 S.E. Oral Hull Road, Sandy Oregon 97055. Phone:
(503) 668-4542, FAX: (503) 668-8359
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000113 190429 msg00770.tex]

614
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.7. EQUIP-FUEL

Minimum Fuel Requirement AD

Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:13:10

In a message dated 11/5/99 10:45:12 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Did I miss something, or does the minimum-fuel limitation only apply to

non-baffled bladders?

Good Afternoon Marc,

Don’t know if you missed anything or not! But AD 72-11-02 is applicable and lists the
action to be taken on the various airplanes.
The following is a quick, and possibly inaccurate, overview of the AD.
If your airplane has the 40 gallon tanks, it should have a yellow mark up to the 3/8
gauge marking on each fuel gauge and a placard either on the fuel selector panel or
elsewhere in the pilots view, cautioning that there must be at least 13 gallons in each
main for takeoff. Should you have the 25 gallon tanks, the yellow mark should go to the
1/2 tank position. The placard is the same as for the 40 gallon tanks.
For those who have the 20 gallon tanks, the yellow marking is to extend to the center
of the 1/2 mark. That is listed as the 7 gallon position, however a red mark is supposed
to be placed to denote empty at the 3 gallon position.
This whole AD reeks of big brother protectionism! There is NO unusable fuel in any
Bonanza, Debonair or Stretch Debbie if the airplane is flown in a coordinated manner.
The fuel outlet may be uncovered at very low fuel states by putting the flaps down and
descending at the maximum flap extended speeds with the throttle closed or nearly so.
I can’t imagine why anybody would be descending like that unless they had just messed
up an approach and were diving for the runway. I wouldn’t think running the tank dry
under those conditions would cause a problem unless one misjudged the approach and
undershot the runway!! If the airplane is flown at normal approach speeds, the outlet
will not unport, regardless of the flap setting and the quantity of fuel in the tank, till it
is truly empty!
There was an earlier AD that applied to the non baffled tanks concerning eliminating
prolonged slips and turning style takeoffs. That was AD 70-03-05.
Does that help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991105 141310 msg10201.tex]

615
4.7. EQUIP-FUEL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Tank Baffles
Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:46:50

In a message dated 3/13/01 6:30:23 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Anyone bought a new 40 gallon fuel cell lately? If so, do you recall the cost
of the tank and installation kit? Thanks

Good Morning Will,

I have noted that others have given you price and source information, but I would like
to add a comment.
If your airplane first came from Beechcraft with the non baffled tank, you can still install
that tank and be legal.
If it came with a baffled tank, a baffled one must be installed.
I STRONGLY recommend that a non baffled tank be used in any airplane for which it
is legal.
The non baffled tank costs about sixty to seventy percent of the baffled tank. It is lighter
and easier to install than the baffled one. On top of that, it holds more fuel!
The only folks who would have any need for a baffled tank would be those who have
a need to fly in a steady state cross controlled slipping condition for long periods of
time or for those who like to spin around in rapid tight turns on the ground before
takeoff while burning fuel from a tank which is located on the outside of the turn. We
can thank the lawyers and non thinking aviators among us for the heavy, troublesome,
smaller capacity and more expensive baffled tank.
At least, that is the way I see it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS If I were buying, I would buy from Eagle Fuel Cells http://www.eaglefuelcells.com
[ARTICLES/20010313 094650 msg05829.tex]

616
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.7. EQUIP-FUEL

Tip Tanks
Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:07:49

Good Evening Charlie,

Charlie Gibbs wrote:

Opinion Needed!
After returning from the ABS convention in STL yesterday (A great event
!) , I again wished for tip tanks. Even though I landed back here in JAX
with over an hour of fuel left, the pucker factor was higher than I like after
a 4.5 hour flight. Any opinions on Beryl D’Shannon vs. Osborne tanks? Is
Osborne worth the extra money for 3 more gallons per side (17 vs. 20 gal)
and aluminum vs. fiberglass?
Charlie Gibbs V-35A

I have owned several airplanes with the 20 gallon Brittain tanks (predecessor of the
Osborne) and I liked them very much.
My current airplane had the BDS tanks on it when I purchased the airplane.
I have been pleasantly surprised by the ease of use and general reliability of Allen
Peterson’s tanks.
The Brittain/Osborne tanks for many years had a selector valve which provided the
ability to feed from the individual tank direct to the engine. I liked that capability in
the days before we had electronic fuel flow gauges available as it aided my long range
fuel planning and analysis.
The Safe Flight Extenders had a similar valve before Allen bought the STC and re-
designed them to transfer the fuel to the mains instead of feeding directly to the engine.
About eight or ten years ago the multiple position fuel valve Osborne had been using
became prohibitive in price and Osborne adopted a fuel transfer system similar to that
developed by Allen for his tanks.
There are some advantages in the transfer system, especially with the fuel injected
engines. Most folks do not care to run tanks dry. When you are feeding from four
different tanks and do not run them dry, there is likely to be a significant amount of fuel
that is not practically available.
I rather like the idea of the aluminum tanks but I also find that I like the visual fuel
gauges on the fiberglass tanks a lot better than the gauges in the cockpit. They are
extremely accurate and easy to see (even at night with a flashlight). They never fail
either!
My BDS tanks are now nineteen years old and show no sign of delamination. I under-
stand the new ones have been changed to a material that should have an even longer

617
4.7. EQUIP-FUEL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

usable life.
I haven’t checked the prices recently but if lower cost is a consideration I do believe the
BDS units are still quite a bit cheaper.
What would I buy if I were buying today?
I would purchase the one that would give me the best gross weight increase on my
airplane and for your V35A that is currently the Osborne. Beryl D’Shannon is trying
to get the gross up and remove the restriction that all weight above 3400 be fuel in the
tips but I do not believe it has been approved yet.
On a J35 I would buy the BDS tanks as they have the best approval for that machine.
Both are excellent products. The Osbornes are a little classier in the detail department
and the extra fuel is handy. (I’d really like to have thirty gallons on each side!)
Long range is not the only advantage to tip tanks. The ability to ferry fuel to those neat
out of the way airports is very helpful.
I can’t imagine owning a Bonanza, Debbie or StretchDebbie without tip tanks.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980914 220749 msg05389.tex]

618
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.7. EQUIP-FUEL

Transfer Pump
Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:06:02

In a message dated 9/21/00 10:13:34 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I like the gravity feed if you are going to do a lot of extended overwater
flight. Trips to Europe and such. For domestic flying, where finding a place
to land in case of a transfer pump failure is not so critical, I would normally
recommend the transfer pump system. While I do not mind running a tank
dry while feeding the engine, there is no need to do it if you have the transfer
pumps.

Good Morning All,

I was just mulling over this situation and had a thought. Pretty rare occurrence these
days!
Jack’s problem with the turbo adds another dimension that I was not aware of.
Maybe the best answer for those long overwater flights would be to have both the valve
and the transfer pump. It would not be too comfortable to be several hundred miles
offshore over the cold and dark North Atlantic and be messing around getting your one
and only cooling fan back in operation should one of the tip tanks have difficulty starting
it’s flow. The transfer line could be hooked up in such a manner that it scavenged the
air from the lines before you ever tried to feed directly from the tank to the engine. You
could switch to a main when there was estimated to be a few gallons left in the other tank
and then use the transfer system to strip the last bit of fuel from the auxiliary and/or
wing tip tanks. If you really like to play around with complicated fuel management
procedures, but don’t like to run tanks dry, there might even be a reasonably simple
way to use the transfer pump to take the last bit of fuel from the right tank over to the
left one and then there would never be any necessity to run a tank dry while operating
tank to engine!
Just a thought, and not at all developed!
Cy will probably have a stroke!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000922 120602 msg13886.tex]

619
4.7. EQUIP-FUEL CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Two Speed Fuel Pump

Tue, 7 Mar 2000 07:23:16

In a message dated 3/7/00 5:53:35 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Your engine is the IO-470N and it has only a 1 speed electric fuel pump.
The IO-520 has a two speed pump required as described (it is actually a
1 speed pump with a big resistor/ electrical doohickey to step down the
voltage or something... you can tell I’m not EE smart).

Good Morning Scott,

Actually, I think you will find that a very high percentage of the IO-520 installations
just have the one speed unit. Also, while a very high percentage of the airplanes utilize
the same pump with a dropping resistor in line to accomplish the low speed function,
there are some that do have two separate pumps!
Now, by my use of the term ”very high percentage,” you can tell that I don’t have any
idea of how many and what type pumps are used in the fleet!
Both the Colemill and the BDS IO-550 conversion STCs require the two speed option.
When Colemill installed the 550 in my airplane, they neglected to add that feature. I
installed the BDS dropping resistor kit to obtain the low pump pressure capability.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000307 072316 msg04362.tex]

620
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.7. EQUIP-FUEL

Usable Fuel
Tue, 4 May 1999 13:21:01

In a message dated 5/4/99 11:20:42 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Regarding placarded versus actual usable, I ran a 37 gal tank dry during
cruise on my 1979 F33A a couple weeks ago and it took over 40 gal from
the fuel truck.
Bob Briggs

Good Afternoon Bob,

If the tanks are snapped up and everything is in place, the 40 gallon tanks on your
airplane will generally hold 40 and one half to 41 gallons. The early tanks without the
extra fuel box or baffle system, would often hold as much as 41 and one half gallons.
When the forties were first installed, Beech listed them as forty gallons usable. It wasn’t
till after those slippers and sliders started screwing around with our beloved beasts that
all of the ridiculous restrictions concerning unusable fuel and minimum fuel in each tank
for takeoff was added.
There is NO unusable fuel in any of the 35, 33 or 36 series airplanes if the tanks are
properly maintained and the aircraft is properly flown. My personal minimum fuel for
takeoff in the early days of the S and V models was ten gallons in the tank being used.
The ”thirty-seven usable” and ”minimum thirteen gallon fuel in each tank” restrictions
are things added by the lawyers.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990504 132101 msg04308.tex]

621
4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

4.8 EQUIP-LDGGEAR

622
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR

Gear Extension Speed

Wed, 7 Feb 2001 23:19:11

In a message dated 2/7/01 10:02:40 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Wow! That is 152 knots! What damage can I expect - just the gear doors?
What about the gear themselves? Steve

Good Evening Steve,

If all of the components are in good shape and properly adjusted, nothing bent or worn
out of normal limits, nothing will happen. If you do it regularly, the equipment will
start to show signs of abnormal wear.
The gear itself will have no problems, but the door rods and such on the very early
airplanes may fail. That is why you should only use that emergency number for the
later airplanes or those that have had the beef up kit applied. Yours came from the
factory equipped with the heavier rods.
I have been told by one factory test pilot that they threw the gear out at that speed or
higher on every production test flight just to make sure everything was OK.
If you need it, use it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS The straight 35 nose gear door rods look like a piece of 1/8 inch welding rod. The
later ones are a piece tubing about 1/4 inch OD. I think, but don’t know for sure, that
was the major weak point.
[ARTICLES/20010207 231911 msg03107.tex]

623
4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Gear Position Indicator

Tue, 15 Dec 1998 18:19:34

In a message dated 12/15/98 12:09:17 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

Hi there, If you are getting a green ”gear up” indication when the gear
is only part way retracted, then it sounds like a limit switch must have
come out of adjustment. It was shutting off power to the gear motor, and
showing gear up at the same time.

Good Evening John and All,

I think we need to remember that this was on a ”G” model. Like the rest of the early
airplanes, on the G model when the light shows gear up or down, all that means is that
the gear box shaft has turned full travel. It does not indicate the position of the gear
unless all components are working properly.
The nose gear indicator is hooked directly to the nose gear and if it shows gear up, that
means that it is not down and when it shows gear down, that will let you know that it
is not up. The nose gear indicator will not tell you for sure the position of the landing
gear anymore than the panel light will!
The indicating system on the early airplanes leaves a lot to be desired.
The nose gear can be hung up and not fully retracted even though the gear box shaft
has turned full travel and shut off the motor.
The newer system will not show a gear safe condition (if properly adjusted) unless the
individual landing gear legs are overcenter and in safe condition for landing.
Incidentally, I subscribe to the thought that cycling the Bonanza landing gear is almost
always a bad idea.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19981215 181934 msg07551.tex]

624
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR

Gear Position Indicator

Wed, 6 Jan 1999 13:27:47

In a message dated 1/6/99 9:30:38 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

My gear lights have a mind of their own. I own a 1970 V35B. Am I assured
that the gear is down and locked if the ”DOWN” is visible in the window
just above the floorboard? Thanks,

This is an important question. If your airplane is equipped with only the indicator on
the cover below the throttle quadrant and the one light for up and one light for down
type of system, it is the same as the early Bonanzas and is not a very good indication
of landing gear position.
I rather remembered that all of the V35B’s had the newer style indicating system with
a separate light for each element of the gear. Obviously my memory is failing!
The indicator that I believe you are referring to is actuated by a cable from the nose
gear. If it says down, all that means is that the nose gear is not in the up position.
It does not mean that the nose gear is locked down and tells you nothing about the
position of the main gear.
The two lights that are located on the panel and labeled gear up or gear down are related
to whether or not the landing gear actuator shaft has turned far enough to actuate the
switches that light the lights.
Either or both main gear elements could still be stowed in the wells and you would have
no way to know that except by the feel of the airplane.
It is a terrible system. Fortunately, the gear itself is very reliable if properly maintained.
The later airplanes have switches on the gear legs which (if properly rigged) will tell you
if the gear legs are overcenter and in the locked, safe to land, position.
Many early airplanes have been modified to the later type indicating devices. It is an
excellent addition to the airplane.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990106 132747 msg00250.tex]

625
4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Gear Position Indicator

Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:47:30

Good Evening Greg Weiss,

In a message dated 1/6/99 2:22:26 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

O.K. so if the (3) indicator lights are green, that is golden. If the main
gear lights are green and the nosewheel gear light is off, even if it is reading
”DOWN” on the floor board, there is no guarantee that the nosewheel is
locked, only that it is not retracted? I do have the mirror on the (L) wing
but it is very difficult to see. I appreciate the feedback.

That is a true statement!

The movement that takes the mechanism overcenter is so small that a gross indication
such as the UP or DOWN sign doesn’t say much. If it says UP, that means that the
nose gear is not down. If it says DOWN, that tells you that the nose gear is not up.
Nothing more!
The mirrors are a big help, but if the gear is almost overcenter but not quite, you
probably won’t be able to tell the difference.
Treat any adverse gear light indication as the real thing. IMNSHO, the gear should
never be cycled in an effort to get a better indication. There are a few cases where that
might help, but in the vast majority of failure modes, cycling the gear will just make
things worse.
It is almost always worth while to attempt a crank down to see if the sector gear has
turned full travel but don’t try to crank it up.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990106 184730 msg00266.tex]

626
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR

Gear Position Indicator

Thu, 7 Jan 1999 00:50:40

Good Evening Bill,

Another viewpoint –
In a message dated 1/6/99 8:52:37 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

You do know something is amiss. If the (3) gears get outta synch, they will
be a hell of a bang!!

Generally true but not always. I had a friend who had the left gear pushrod bend instead
of shoving out the gear and he heard and felt nothing. I guess the argument could be
made that there was sound and feel that should have given him a clue, but he noted
nothing until the left side settled to the runway on landing. He was a fairly experienced
aviator and was a current flight Instructor at the time.

And that’s why I think they did a real disservice when they got rid of the
mechanical indicator in favor of the 3 lites.

The nose gear mechanical indicator gave no unusual indication in my friends case as the
nose gear was down and locked.
If you lose all electrical, cranking the gear till it hits the stop gives a pretty good
indication that the gear is down provided that nothing mechanical fails. There is still
no other way of checking that all three gear legs are in the proper overcenter position
other then operative and properly rigged overcenter switches. If the gear is cranked
down from the up position after an electrical failure, I always recommend that the turns
be counted. (Should be around fifty-two turns, but should be cranked until it hits the
stop anyhow.) That gives as much assurance as can be had and is a better indication
that the gear is down as far as it can go, than does the mechanical flag type indicator.
The DOWN indicator will show down before the nose gear leg is overcenter and tells
you nothing about the other two gear legs.

I can cause all sorts of angst on the pilot’s part in the newer airplanes by
asking him to land with the power off.
No real gear position indication.

Agreed. There is no way, including looking at the nose gear mechanical indicator, to
tell if the gear is properly extended and locked without electrical power.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990107 005040 msg00286.tex]

627
4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Gear Position Indicator

Wed, 10 Nov 1999 23:10:55

In a message dated 11/10/99 7:57:31 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Saturday I had the Nav lights on and the gear down light did not come on!
After confirming gear down and landing, then gaining access to the bulb
on the ground, the light started working. It’s much brighter with the nav
lights off but even with them on it’s dim but visible. Thank goodness for
the wing tip mirror and the mechanical gear down indicator on the floor.
They reduced the pucker factor signifigantly! With only 12 hours in the Bo,
I didn’t want to wrinkle any sheet metal. Larry Collins N124RS Richmond,
KY

Good Evening Larry,

Glad that your pucker factor was reduced by the indications shown, but there are a few
things about the indication system that you should keep in mind.
The gear position indicator lights do not directly indicate the position of the gear or tell
you whether or not the gear legs are in the locked position. They merely tell you that
the shaft on the gear box has turned as far as it is supposed to turn. One, two or all
of the gear could be up, partially up or just not locked and you would have no way of
knowing that via the light indications. If the mechanical indicator is showing up, that
means that the nose gear is not down, if it shows down, that means the nose gear is not
up.
The Bonanza landing rear mechanism is a very reliable system and generally works
very well if well maintained, but the indication system is from the dark ages! The
later airplanes have a more modern style that does give reasonable assurance that the
individual legs are down and locked, provided the switches are correctly rigged. On the
early airplanes, neither the mechanical nor the electrical indications are a very positive
indication of gear position.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991110 231055 msg10469.tex]

628
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR

Gear Position Indicator

Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:19:52

In a message dated 2/23/00 12:10:14 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Now I thought I could rely on my little flag. Can I rely on the single landing
light?

Good Afternoon Steve,

Unfortunately, not very much!
The single light just tells you that the shaft on the gear box has turned to it’s proper
limit. If all of the rods and such are properly adjusted the gear should be down, but if
one of the rods has bent, that gear could still be in the well and the light would show
green!
While the gear system on our airplanes is quite an engineering marvel, remember that it
was designed less than forty-two years after Wilbur and Orvilles first successful powered
flights.
The addition of gear down light switches on the actuator legs is a big improvement, but
even that is not as good as the systems that actually have a switch which is activated
when the gear leg knuckle is over-center.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000223 131952 msg03429.tex]

629
4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Gear Position Indicator

Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:02:53

In a message dated 2/23/00 5:34:01 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob: When did V-tails go to three lights? Where are those sensors (actu-
ator legs)? Steve

Good Evening Steve,

I can’t say for sure, but I believe the three light system was first used on the 1970 V35B.
The switches are mounted so that they are actuated by the position of the main and
nose gear brace assemblies. The ones on the main gear braces are nice and solid, but
the one for the nose gear has a rather flimsy lever and arm arrangement that is not as
positive acting as the main gear set up. The amber ’in transit’ light is actuated by the
nose gear lever assembly. The gear down switches are adjusted so that they will not be
actuated until the lift legs and the braces are in alignment and the knuckle faces are in
complete contact with each other. The gear actuation spider turns a little beyond that
point so as to provide a spring force to keep the knuckles in the over-center position.
There are some after market STC approvals to apply individual gear lights on the older
models. I don’t know if they use the same points of actuation or not.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000223 190253 msg03445.tex]

630
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR

Gear Position Indicator

Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:10:22

In a message dated 2/24/00 7:45:03 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

BDS told me they will not sell the STC or kit EVER! They don’t want the
liability. The fellow that they bought the STC from(Harold Clark) has no
papers and never filed any with theFAA. That road is a dead end.

Good Morning John and All,

Based on what I have heard here, I think if I were going to try to put a three light
gear advisory system on the Bonanza and the STC remains so elusive, I would buy the
components from Raytheon and apply for a local approval.
The FAA inspectors tend to be rather friendly whenever you are adding something that
can be construed as an improvement in safety, especially if the later models of the same
airplane have included it as standard.
The other side of coin is how much do you really need the three light system? I like it a
lot and would prefer that it be on board, but I don’t think I would go to much trouble
to add it!
If there was an easy straight forward STC for a thousand bucks or so, parts included,
I would do it, but much more than that, or if it was going to require a long exchange
with the FEDs, I don’t think I would bother.
While it is nice to know whether the gear is really down and locked or not, unlike
hydraulic gears, there isn’t much you can do about it on a Bonanza. If the gear box
shaft has turned all of the way, the gear is down as far as it is going to go!
The thing to be concerned about is whether or not the single light switch which is on
the early airplanes is properly rigged.
There are mirrors available which can be attached to the wing tips or the tip tanks to
allow the landing gear to be inspected. I have never used those and don’t know if you
can tell whether the knuckles are over-center by viewing through those mirrors or not,
but that might be one answer.
It might just be cheaper, easier and more practical to make it a habit every month or so
to extend the landing gear by the normal electrical means, then unfold the gear handle,
crank it to the down position and determine if the motion is still at the designated one-
eighth to one-quarter turn. (five-eighths to three-quarters on the very latest actuators)
Obviously for greatest safety, the circuit breaker should be pulled, that is just a risk I
take.
For What It’s Worth!
Happy Skies,

631
4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000224 101022 msg03501.tex]

632
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR

Gear Position Indicator

Fri, 25 Feb 2000 22:16:39

In a message dated 2/25/00 9:00:50 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Paul: If you would be willing to take pictures and have your A&P inspect
and draw what he sees up, I would be glad to pay the bill - if that is not
too much trouble for you. Steve

Good Evening Steve,

I don’t know what was done on Paul’s C35, but the setup on my V35B looks like it
would be a no-brainer to duplicate and it should fit on any Bonanza. The brackets that
hold both the up and the down switches for the main gear are just bent up sheet metal.
The tab that actuates the switches is a straight piece attached to the gear brace. The
nose gear is a little more complicated, but it is still simple flat stock bent to the right
shape.
All of the components are very straight forward.
If it were me, I would first get the part numbers for all of the parts and see just how
expensive they would be to purchase from Raytheon. You never know, that might be
cheaper than having them made even though they are simple.
If you make the installation the same as the later airplanes and use all Beech/Raytheon
parts, or reasonable facsimiles thereof, the local approval should slide right through at
almost any FSDO. They like that kind of stuff!!
Don’t make the job bigger than it is!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000225 221639 msg03648.tex]

633
4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Gear Position Indicator

Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:46:07

In a message dated 8/15/00 5:06:54 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Why all the interest in these 3 lights? I don’t get it.

I have a 65 Deb with one green light that (I believe) indicates the position
of the sector gear that is physically connected to all 3 gear. I also have a
wheel that physically indicates the position of the nose wheel.
Why would I want to wire up a bunch of lights with new contactors? Just
to emulate a new Bonanza?
Mike McNamara

Good Afternoon Mike,

Your analysis is basically correct.
If all of the components work as they are supposed to, when the shaft on the transmission
has turned to it’s stop, all three landing gear legs should be fully extended with the gear
legs overcenter.
Unfortunately, they do not always work as they should.
There have been many cases of the gear extension push rods (or other components)
failing. The noise of the gear going down is about the same. You may or may not hear
the tube when it fails and you have no way of knowing whether the gear is down and
locked.
The situation is better now that most mechanics know a little more about proper ser-
vicing of the Beech landing gear. The most common cause of one gear hanging up was
misrigging of the uplocks. Even with a misrigged uplock, the gear would usually come
out OK if the rollers were properly lubricated.
In any case, there were enough failures of the system that Beech decided to go to a
more conventional indicating system which indicates movement of the actual leg which
extends the individual landing gear components. It still doesn’t assure that the legs are
overcenter, but it is much more positive than the old one light system.
As far as the nose gear indicator is concerned, the only thing it will tell you for sure is
that the gear is not in the position opposite to that indicated. If the indicator says that
the gear is down, you can be assured that it is not up, but it may or may not be in the
locked, over center, position. If it indicates up, it is definitely not down, but it may not
be fully retracted.
As long as your gear always works correctly, the one light system is fine, but if it always
works perfectly, why do you need an indication at all?

634
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR

I like the three light system better.

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000815 184607 msg12199.tex]

635
4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Gear Position Indicator

Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:07:22

In a message dated 2/15/01 10:43:46 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I’ve always assumed that if I had a green light, the main gear was down
and locked and if the mechanical indicator on the nose gear said down it
was probably down and locked.

Good Afternoon Hal,

On the early airplanes, the light tells you that the shaft on the transmission has turned
to the point where the gear should be down and locked. If there is any failure in the
mechanism between the transmission and the overcenter mechanism on the landing gear,
it will not stop the light from being lit.
I have seen failures of the extension rod where one main landing gear was completely
retracted, but the nose and the other main gear were down and locked.
The light showed green and the mechanical indicator showed what it should show when
the gear is down.
The mechanical gear indicator only concerns the nose gear, it has nothing to do with
the mains.
If the indicator says the gear is down, you can be assured that the nose wheel is not up,
but it may not be locked down. The indicator cannot be trusted to assure that it is.
Similarly, if the mechanical indicator says that the gear is up, you can be reasonably
confident that the nose gear is not down, but it may not be fully up. It could be, and
has been known to be, jammed on the nose gear doors and sticking several inches out
in the breeze while still indicating up.
It has no relationship to the position of the mains at all.
Remember, the landing gear indication system for the Bonanza was designed approxi-
mately forty years after the Wright brothers first flight.
Retractable landing gear for a GA airplane was still a fairly new concept and Beech
was obsessed with building an extremely light weight aircraft. Fortunately for us, they
succeeded in that quest, but there were a few items that could have been made a little
more secure.
The landing gear indicating system is one of those items.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010215 170722 msg03942.tex]

636
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR

Gear Switch Location

Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:46:16

In a message dated 10/16/00 12:50:01 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob Not a Lufthansa, but our F33C was a KLM training plane and while
the gear switch is in the normal place for the plane, the four lights (3 green
1 red) are located about 6 inches up on the panel and so are visible past
the dual yoke to both pilot and instructor.

Good Afternoon Jack,

I don’t know how many were built in the configuration we saw. Our WBS convention
was held in Phoenix a few years ago and one of the places we visited was the Lufthansa
training center at Goodyear. They had the switch and the lights up on the center panel
for all of the 33 and 36 models that we saw. I don’t remember whether the Barons were
that way or not.
I asked about the placement and was told that the switches were installed that way by
Beechcraft at the request of Lufthansa.
I later contacted Beech and asked if they had any sort of a kit or other approval for
placing the switches on the center panel. I was told that they didn’t have a kit or other
information. It seems that they considered it to be a minor alteration and just did it
under their manufacturing authority.
The instructors at Goodyear were very pleased with the arrangement and felt that it
was a major deterrent to inadvertent gear retraction.
I haven’t decided if I will do it under the local approval concept or just figure that it
is a minor alteration and let it go with a log book entry. If it’s good enough for Beech,
why not?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001016 154616 msg14936.tex]

637
4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Jammed Nose Gear/Bug Replacement

Mon, 4 Dec 2000 13:40:51

In a message dated 12/1/00 3:46:39 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Old Bob - was yours changed after your nose wheel event?

Good Morning Steve,

No, there was only a very small surface scratch at the very low point of the ”v” right
where the leading edges of the nose gear doors meet the nose bowl.
We did replace the nose gear doors, but they are really not badly damaged and I feel
they could be relatively easily repaired and reused.
One of the advantages of a planned nose gear retracted landing is that steps can be
taken to minimize the damage.
I had a passenger with me and I had him go to a rear seat for the landing. I also used no
flaps so as to be able to retain elevator authority to a lower speed. I purposely lowered
the nose gently before the elevator lost power to reduce the down force on contact.
The four blade prop also held the nose up high enough to reduce the degree of damage
sustained by the airframe. The primary damage to the airframe was caused by the nose
gear extension rod which buckled and tore out the lightening holes in a couple of frames
of the floor pan. The major airframe expense was the labor required to remove and
reinstall all of the cables and components involved when repairing the relatively light
damage to the frames.
Sorry I can’t provide any guidance on replacing the nose bowl. So far, I haven’t had to
do it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001204 134051 msg17144.tex]

638
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR

Jammed Nose Gear

Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:01:06

In a message dated 1/26/00 9:52:05 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob:
I was under the (mistaken?) belief that the Bonanza Gear was all tied
together with rods - so either all the gear is up or all the gear is down
(unless a rod broke). Am I mistaken? Did one rod break?
Steve

Good Evening Steve,

I wrote about this a year ago, but you might have missed it!
When the nose gear became jammed, the rod which was supposed to push the gear out,
bent and tore up a couple of bulkheads in the belly. The Bonanza gear is a neat design
and and generally very reliable, but when it fails there aren’t many alternatives.
When I heard the two loud snaps as the rod bent and tore up the bulkheads, it was
obvious a landing minus the nose gear was in order.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000126 230106 msg01809.tex]

639
4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Jammed Nose Gear

Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:28:03

In a message dated 1/27/00 8:15:36 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob, what caused the jam?

Thanks, Joe Christian P35 N61JC

And:
In a message dated 1/27/00 7:57:46 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

Bob: First: wow! (I was not on this list one year ago) Second: is there
any maintenance that could be done that I should be thinking about doing
to lessen the possibility of me having such an event (I love to learn from
others experiences where possible). Steve

Good Morning Joe and Steve,

I suppose I would have to place the blame on faulty maintenance and improper preflight.
Now since I do all of the maintenance and am responsible for the preflight, I guess we
know who to holler at!
The little devil that jammed the gear in the up position was the ball joint fitting on
the end of the left nose gear retract rod. It had come off of the ball and the rod was
of just the right length that the fitting was able to jam between the axle support of the
nose gear strut and the rear of the nosewheel well. On my airplane (they are all a little
different) that space is about one quarter inch. The fitting is three-eighths of an inch in
diameter. As the mechanism pulls the gear up, it was able to supply a rather healthy
pull and jammed it quite tightly. Even on the ground, we were unable to get the nose
gear down until we released the air pressure in the strut.
Since the rod pushes the gear out, the rod bent and the force available to put it down
was not as great as the force that pulled it up.
Now, why did the fitting come loose.
I don’t know!
We disassembled the thing and it showed no signs of wear. The machining marks were
still clearly visible on both the ball and the bearing surfaces. The spring was unbroken.
The adjustment nut was at about the same place as all the others. There was no way
to determine what the pressure on the spring had been, but it is something that I check
whenever I work on the gear and it had only been about a hundred hours since the last
annual, so who knows?

640
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR

There was one big gouge on the ball and a slight enlargement of the key shaped slot.
Our supposition is that a stone or something had lodged in the hole and a couple of
rotations during retraction and extension had forced the fitting off the ball.
That is just a theory, nothing proven.
I questioned friends who have done a lot more maintenance than I as to whether they
had ever seen such a thing. I found some who commented they had seen the fittings come
loose before, but it had never caused a problem other than leaving the door dangling.
It was the consensus that the fitting getting in just the right place to jam the gear was
at least a thousand to one shot!
I would have caught it if I had checked the nose gear doors for attachment and security
before takeoff. Unfortunately, that is not something that was a part of my normal
preflight!
One of my neighbors had watched my first takeoff of the day, and had noted that the
doors were fully closed as I passed over his head. He is certain that he would have noted
a door hanging open. The gear problem was couple of gear cycles later. I was descending
to land at an airport in northern Indiana where I was dropping some cylinders off for
machine work.
Since my incident occurred, I have crawled under and examined at least a hundred
different Bonanzas. Some are in atrociously bad condition and others look quite well
cared for.
I haven’t changed my maintenance procedure any, but I suppose I look at those fittings
a little more carefully now!
I even try to wiggle those doors on some of my preflights!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000127 112803 msg01842.tex]

641
4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Jammed Nose Gear

Sat, 11 Mar 2000 13:56:46

In a message dated 3/11/00 11:37:54 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

In your case, though, weren’t the mains down and only the nosewheel up?
Seems that recovery should have been as easy as just raising up the nose and
slipping some kind of wheeled dolly underneath, and then pushing/pulling
it over to the maintenance shop.

Good Morning Eric,

True enough! Mine was a no brainer. We let the air out of the strut to release the jam
and then put the nose gear down. After bracing it with a piece of two by four, it was
towable.
Most full gear up landings are removed from the runway by lifting the airplane and
putting the gear down. I have seen them lifted and put on flat beds though.
The sophisticated airports use airbags under the wing. The wild ’get it out it of the
way fast’ guys use slings which do a lot of damage and the more knowledgeable small
plane types will, on occasion, call out everyone that can be found to help, then just lift
it up by placing people along the leading and trailing edges of the wings and tail, lifting
it bodily. The guys along the leading edge need to do almost all of the lifting and the
ones in back of the wing just stabilize it while the leading edge guys provide the muscle.
I helped once and it went surprisingly well. We lifted it with the fuel that was on board
and a person in the cockpit to operate the gear.
I have seen them lifted with one sling just ahead of the wing and one immediately behind
with minimal damage. I also saw one where it had been lifted by placing one sling on
each wing and that one had a lot of flap damage.
I saw another where an attempt was made to lift it by the engine lift fitting and that
resulted in the fitting being pulled out of the crankcase. I don’t think they had even
thought about how the airplane would have hung from the fitting if it hadn’t pulled out.
Beech recommends that the pilot’s window be taken out, the door removed or opened,
and the airplane lifted by attachments to the main spar. I have never seen that done.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000311 135646 msg04583.tex]

642
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR

Jammed Nose Gear

Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:25:22

In a message dated 2/15/01 10:44:28 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob,
How do you think the shaft got bent? It looks like it would take a lot of
force to do that!

Good Morning Bill,

The simple answer is: I don’t know!
However, I have looked at a hundred or more airplanes since my incident and found
many inconsistencies that give me concern.
First, the pin on the nose gear which goes into the fork and closes the doors provides a
lot of force should the doors encounter some restriction to closing.
That pin is fixed on all but the latest airplanes and those older ones which have had the
roller kit installed.
Next, my inspections have revealed that there is a considerable variance concerning the
angular relationship between the position of the fork slot, the lift arms for the doors and
the weldment that provides the stop.
If the pin should strike the fork on one of the tines instead of being reasonably aligned
with the slot, a tremendous pressure could be put on the cross shaft. I think that is
what is happening.
I found at least twenty-five or thirty percent of the airplanes I looked at seemed to have
some bend in their cross shafts.
I have heard of at least one occasion, other than on my airplane, where the pin has
ridden on the top of the upper tine instead of picking up the slot. I suspect that it
happens a lot more often than any of us realize.
I believe the problem is associated with the difference in the angular relationship between
the slot, the lift arms and the stop. I wish there were an adjustment, but there is none.
The stop could be made adjustable quite easily, but the big problem is the angle between
the lift arms and the slot.
The airloads on the doors tend to force the doors open except in a sideslip situation.
In order for the doors to resist sideslip motion, the lift legs are stopped by the fixed stop
in a position where the door arms will be overcenter. The doors will then be protected
from being closed by the side load.
If the amount of over center is excessive, and I think it is on many airplanes, mine

643
4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

included, the fork gets lowered excessively by normal airloading. The outward force
applied to the doors by normal coordinated flight pulls the fork slot down. In some
cases, it comes down so far that the pin strikes on the upper tine. If it does that often
enough and hard enough, it bends the shaft just a little. As the shaft is bent, the
relationship between the slot and the pin gets worse. More strikes and more bending of
the shaft results. If it gets bad enough, the pin will occasionally ride on the top of the
fork and close the doors early!
Have you ever noted that the lifting pin on some airplanes is badly worn, maybe even
has a slot half way through it or so, while other airplanes with a similar number of hours
have a pin which shows no wear at all?
I THINK that is caused by a less desirable orientation between the pin on the nose gear
and the slot in the fork.
That is why I recommend that everyone pull the cowl flap shaft and the nose gear cross
shaft out of their airplane and check them for straightness. If yours has been around
for a while and is not bent. All is well and there is nothing to worry about. Just make
sure the spring has adequate tension and the assembly is kept well lubricated and there
should be no problem.
If, however, there is any bending at all in either shaft. Something should be done.
What should be done is the problem!
I feel that there should be no more than about one-eighth of an inch over center when
measured at the end of the nose gear door lift arm. Many airplanes have much more.
If the amount of over center is at a minimum (the way I like it) it is very important that
the spring be strong and the bearing surfaces clean and lubricated to avoid the door
being closed against the nose gear in a side slip.
I feel that the factory has changed the angle back and forth over the years to provide
more or less overcenter, but no one that I have questioned at the factory has ever had,
or at least admitted to, any knowledge of the situation at all!
When you check your gear retraction, be sure to check how well the pin aligns with the
slot. It is important that this check be made with outward pressure being applied to
the nose gear doors to simulate inflight loads.
It is also important to note how much force is required to open or close the cowl flaps.
If it is appreciably more when the gear is up than when it is down, that is an indication
that something is wrong with the nose gear door mechanism.
Any help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010216 122522 msg03988.tex]

644
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR

Manually Retracting Gear

Sat, 9 Jan 1999 08:36:36

Good Morning All,

I noted a couple of references to cranking the landing gear up.
The factory has always said NOT to do it.
When it is necessary (during maintenance on the jacks) to bring it up slowly, the rec-
ommended procedure is to do it by ”bumping” it up utilizing the landing gear circuit
breaker.
I don’t know precisely which part of the mechanism they feel is not strong enough to
stand the strain of cranking it up, but since all other components used while taking the
gear up electrically are the same, it seems reasonable to assume that it has something
to do with either the ”screwdriver” drive end, the slot on the worm gear shaft or some
thrust problem with reversed action on the worm gear.
Norm Colvin always said it was OK to crank it in the up direction some twenty turns
or so until the inboard doors where open far enough for one to disconnect them as is
required to properly check the landing gear rigging during maintenance.
Any greater movement in the up direction beyond that is applying more stress somewhere
than the mechanism is designed to sustain.
On another point, the lower the speed you use while cranking the gear down, the easier
it will be. As I said in an earlier post, I would get the speed down to no more than
recommended approach speed (130 per cent of the stall speed at the weight you are
operating). That should be somewhere below 80 knots the vast majority of the time. It
makes it a lot easier if a climb is set up at that speed using the power you would need
to maintain level flight with the landing gear extended.
Try it, you’ll like it!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990109 083636 msg00376.tex]

645
4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Nose Gear Steering

Sun, 24 Jan 1999 21:49:13

Good Evening All,

In a message dated 1/24/99 6:58:06 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

The original Model 35 Bonanzas didn’t have a steerable nosewheel. They

used differential braking to turn the plane.

Not only that, the turning radius was tighter with the freeswiveling nose gear, there
were a lot less components to maintain, fewer parts to go wrong and if one is using the
nose gear steering for anything other than taxiing, it is likely that the flight controls are
not being operated in the optimum manner. Two of my straight 35s had no nose gear
steering and the other one had nose gear steering added when it was a couple of years
old. I noted no difference in the ease of handling crosswinds with or without the nose
gear steering.
The greatest advantage of the nose gear steering is in the event of a brake failure. It
means that one can still carefully taxi in to a place where maintenance can be performed
and it allows some limited braking on the landing roll without running off the side of
the runway.
It is a nice to have thing, but if I were to buy an airplane that was not so equipped, I
doubt that I would spend very much to have it added.
The proper use of the aerodynamic controls will do a much better job in a strong
crosswind than will reliance on nose gear steering. Not only that, but the aerodynamic
controls still work on slippery runways!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990124 214913 msg01093.tex]

646
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR

Reusing Tire Tubes

Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:26:18

In a message dated 11/3/00 6:39:19 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I find no reason to scrimp on the cost of a new tube when there are clearly
so many cases of tube failure when re-used.

Good Morning Wes,

That is an interesting observation!
Where do you get your data showing the incidence of tube failure? I know that anecdotal
data is always suspect, but I can’t remember ever having a tube failure on any airplane
that I was flying over the past fifty-four years and 36,000 hours of flying.
I don’t know what the policy of my airline was, (I have a hazy memory of them using
tubeless tires the last twenty years or so, maybe Ralph Requa, Jim Northcott (sp?) or
John Deakin can tell us what we used) but every FBO with which I was associated
handled it the way Paul’s operation does. They were changed on condition.
I tend to waffle a bit. I find that, as I have become more financially able, I tend to
replace the tubes more often than I did in my younger years. Most of the time when I
do, I feel a little guilty about doing so.
I have noted that the nose wheel seems to have more balance problems than do the
mains.
If I have a combination of tire and tube on the nose wheel which balances very well with
no weights added, I will often reuse the tube three or four times. I have the feeling that
the tubes tend to be out of balance more often than do the tires, but there is no data
to support that claim other than personal observation.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001103 092618 msg15655.tex]

647
4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Reusing Tire Tubes

Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:31:53

In a message dated 11/3/00 8:52:36 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

This is cheap insurance that, for most of us, only comes due about every
five years or so.

Cheap insurance protecting you from what?

Where is the evidence that tube failures are causing any problem?
What makes you so certain that a new tube is any better than a used one that shows
no sign of wear and which has a history of good performance?
Why do we set standards of repair and replacement for any parts on our engines and
airframes?
Why are mechanics trained to evaluate the condition of parts and components if every-
thing that is removed form the airplane is supposed to be replaced by a new component
rather than be used to it’s acceptable service life?
Why don’t we just buy a new airplane following each flight?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001103 103153 msg15661.tex]

648
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR

Tires - Michelin vs. Flight Customs

Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:35:24

In a message dated 12/6/00 8:21:30 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I don’t like the Michelin ”Air” tires. They take a set quicker than any other
tire I’ve ever used, and thus always seem out of balance, terrible flat spots
on the first takeoff after a few hours parked. Never again.
I have no data on wear rate, but I’ll be glad to change ’em.

Good Morning John,

Interesting!
I have had just the opposite experience.
I had been using Flight Customs for many years and was always bothered by the thump,
thump, thump after only a day or two of inactivity.
I switched to Michelins a few years ago and have been very pleased. I wonder if we are
just seeing normal variances in production quality?
Happy Skies,
Old bob
[ARTICLES/20001206 113524 msg17248.tex]

649
4.8. EQUIP-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Tires and Wheel Sizes

Mon, 7 Sep 1998 13:09:08

Good Morning Al and Mike,

In a message dated 9/7/98 6:44:49 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

Mike; The bigger wheels/tires make it nicer for grass. Also, if this matters
to you, the a/c will look to be sitting level, rather than nose high. With
the smaller wheels you gain a bit in prop clearance. So far I haven’t heard
anyone complain of either setup. The bigger ones may cost about 300 to
400 more. Good luck, you’ll love ’em. Al

It has been a long time since I have been involved with an airplane equipped with 6.50-8
or 7.00-8 wheels but I do believe both of those require no larger than the 6.50-8 tires be
mounted.
The 6.00-6 wheels require a 7.00-6 tire.
The difference in the resulting overall diameter is likely to be less than one inch or one
half inch in the height of the axle off the ground. I dare say that the amount of tread
on the tire would make almost that much difference.
The inflation of the various struts and tires will make a substantially greater effect on
the ”sitting” attitude of the airplane.
As to operation on grass or other soft surfaces, I wonder whether there is any greater
surface area applied to the ground by a 6.50 tire mounted on an eight inch wheel than
there would be with a 7.00 tire on a six inch rim?
If I were evaluating the choice between the two optional wheel and brake assemblies, I
think the consideration would be which would have the better braking capability, which
would have the greater load carrying capacity and which weighed the least.
It seems that the larger wheel might allow a bigger, more powerful brake to be fitted.
It would be interesting to find out.
Some of the very early airplanes were fitted with a Firestone brake and wheel that was
of the eight inch diameter and it had the best brakes by far of any of the early airplanes.
Unfortunately it was much more costly than the Goodyear and was dropped in favor of
the simpler and cheaper unit.
I think you would be hard pressed to note any change in the way your airplane appears
to be sitting and how well it operates on a soft surface.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980907 130908 msg05287.tex]

650
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

4.9 EQUIP-MISC

651
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

5th and 6th Seats

Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:30:17

Good Morning Skip,

In a message dated 98-03-12 09:39:32 EST, you write:

Does anybody know if you can put 5th and 6th seats in a S model or a
v-35-a if it didn’t come from the factory with them? Thanks again!!!!!!
Skip Weld

Sure, you can put six in the early V35Bs as well, but the CG on most airplanes won’t
allow their use by anything but a small child. That is why Beech quit offering the sixth
seat on the later airplanes. One of the few things I like about my four blade prop is that
it does help with the CG, but even with that, the fifth seat has limited usefulness.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980312 103017 msg01217.tex]

652
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Accessories Guru
Thu, 25 May 2000 22:26:25

In a message dated 5/25/00 9:05:27 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Who is the Guru? When I change engines, I am thinking about going with
the wet pump with no seperator. I think I am in your area and I would
like to have him set it up for me.
Glenn

Good Evening Glenn,

Here is the information you requested.
Terry Norris, Aircraft Systems, 5187 Falcon Road, Rockford, Illinois 61109.
Telephone 815 399-0225
He is the most knowledgeable accessory person that I know. His prices are not low, but
you get the quality that you are paying for. I recommend him and his shop highly.
Remember, regardless of where you are located, he is one day away by overnight delivery.
In fact, Rockford is one of UPS’s major distribution points.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000525 222625 msg08679.tex]

653
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Aileron Trim
Sun, 2 Jul 2000 00:51:21

In a message dated 6/30/00 6:45:50 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Hi Gang,, the newbie again grin,,,,,, how involved would the installation
of aileron trim be? can the parts be had from salvage? Recommended
installation (my plane flys right wing low, and the trim tab has been used
to often and is starting to show signs of fatigue..)

Good Evening Mike,

I tend to agree with those who say get it rigged correctly and you won’t need the trim,
but it is still handy to have even if the aircraft is properly trimmed.
It is my recollection that the aileron trim was not a factory item, but an aftermarket
development that the factory then picked up and started using. I have never added one
to an airplane, but a can’t imagine the required machining being very difficult. All it
does is apply a spring pressure against the aileron chain to hold a variable amount of
tension against the undesirable aileron input. As I recall it was not a difficult aftermarket
application to install.
Incidentally, the automatic control of the electric propellor didn’t come from the factory
boys either. It was another good idea developed by the aftermarket folks which was
picked up and offered by Beech.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000702 005121 msg10442.tex]

654
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Air Skeg
Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:53:49

In a message dated 1/4/00 7:23:11 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

planning stage - speed slope windshield, panel mod, all new glass, tip tanks
(15 gal), air skeg, aileron gap seals, vortex generators, air scoop, etc - etc!

Good Morning Ed,

The B35 is one of the great ones! All of the things you are planning will do nice things
to make it better EXCEPT the air skeg!
Forget IT!
Whether or not it does any good at all is debatable. I think it is worthless and if even a
minimum effort is made with the rudders, anyone can dampen the aircraft sufficiently.
The Skeg adds weight where we don’t need it. To properly make the required tail
bulkhead inspection, it must be removed. That inspection is required every one hundred
hours of operation.
I always consider the tail skeg to be a detriment to the airplane and urge my friends to
take them off and put the aluminum to a better use!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS The jury is still out on the vortex generators. There are old wives tales that say
the speed is negatively affected and that the airplane tends to ice up a little easier. My
only experience with the VGs is on a pressurized Baron and they really made it into a
different airplane. I like them there. Others have told me that the possible gain with a
light wing load airplane just isn’t worth the trouble!
[ARTICLES/20000104 095349 msg00157.tex]

655
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Air Skegs
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:19:17

In a message dated 1/24/01 11:07:24 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Does any one else who has one feel that they are worth installing, or does
anyone know of a better alternative to the air skeg? Thanks. Michael.

Good Evening Michael,

Well, I do have an opinion!
I feel I must warn you that we have beat this to death on this site in the past.
I think that all of the tail skegs should be taken off the airplanes and smashed to
smithereens.
It gets in the way of a proper inspection of the tail mechanism, adds weight to the
airplane in a place where it needs no weight, looks crummy and, in my opinion, doesn’t
help the wiggle a bit.
Just keeping you feet on the rudder pedals, where they belong anyhow, will do just as
much good as the tail skeg. Active, proper, manipulation of the rudder will ameliorate
the Bonanza wiggle as well as anything, but the technique is not intuitive, takes a while
to learn and requires considerable concentration.
The electronic yaw dampers, which are available from at least a couple of manufacturers,
are very expensive, but do almost as good a job as the best wiggler of rudders can do
and they never get tired or distracted by ATC!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010125 001917 msg01735.tex]

656
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Alternate Static System

Tue, 6 Feb 2001 23:43:33

In a message dated 2/6/01 8:11:58 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I wonder how leak-prone that would make the static system? keep plenty
of those little Curtis o-rings around, right? (I have a perpetually leaky
Curtis tip tank valve...) Your comments encouraged.

Good Evening Paul,

I think the Curtiss valve would not be particularly leak prone in that application. Unlike
a fuel drain, nothing would be passing through it that might cause a leak.
On top of that, gasoline will drain through a hole which would not let enough air through
to fail a static system check
I have never installed one myself, but if an airplane was presented to me for an an-
nual which had the Curtiss valve installed via a log book entry, I would consider that
acceptable. I don’t doubt that there would be many FEDs and other IAs who would
disagree!
As long as the static system passes the leak test, I figure we can put any kind of
acceptable fittings in the line that we want. If you wanted to put a tee in the line to
feed an auxiliary instrument, you wouldn’t file a 337 would you?
I consider the Curtiss valve as just another ”acceptable” fitting.
Would your IA buy that argument?
Depending on where the line runs in your airplane, it might even require a tee and some
other fittings to get the line to where you want the Curtiss valve!
Getting to the drain fitting in the late Bonanzas with the Velcroed aft baggage bulkhead
is relatively easy. I do agree with those who are trying to find the drain which some
crummy reupholstery shop buried behind a panel. That’s another reason why there
should be an A&P monitoring upholstery installations. Too many things that don’t
seem pertinent to the upholstery folks are happening when no one is watching the store.
Checking and draining the static line is on the standard Beech inspection form and that
should not require removing the side panels to accomplish.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010206 234333 msg02997.tex]

657
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Alternator - 50 Amp vs. 100 Amp

Sun, 16 Jan 2000 16:33:47

In a message dated 1/16/00 2:21:46 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I am thinking about upgrading my 50 amp alternator to a 100 amp alter-

nator. I have alternator Prestolite Part No. 9422/TCM Part No. 641668
(50 Amp) and am looking at TCM Part No. 642056A1 (100 Amp). Does
anyone have any thoughts on the +/- of this change? What do you think
that cost would be? Is there anything I should know before I do this?

Good Afternoon Peter,

I am wondering just what is your reason for desiring a larger amperage alternator on
your A36?
A 1979 A36 should be equipped with a 24/28 volt system and I can’t imagine any normal
aviation use that would require more than 50 amps at 28 volts for anything except an
electrically deiced prop. My 1978 V35B has a rather heavy load of electrical equipment
and I find the 50 amp to be more than enough for all operations, day, night and IFR.
If you are considering the electric prop deicing, I would suggest that you at least consider
NOT putting it on the airplane. It has been my experience that I have had just as good
results of keeping the prop clean by applying a silicone wax style ice repellent to the
propellor as I have had with electric or alcohol deiced propellors. Doesn’t work for the
wings, but works great on the prop! It is true that you must remember to put it on
before flight in icing conditions, but it doesn’t quit either!
The 100 amp alternator is not only expensive in of itself, but bigger and harder to take
on and off the airplane, which leads to greater costs for servicing.
Now if you have some neat idea for making the airplane go faster that requires the use
of a lot of electricity, maybe the big alternator is worth the trouble!
I have heard that some folks were experimenting with a series of electrically operated
vibration devices that would shed ice from the wings! If that is what you have in mind,
count me in!
If all you want the extra capacity for is an occasional time where a little more power
would be handy, consider adding a B&C standby alternator. The way it is installed,
it will automatically pick up the additional load if the primary alternator becomes
overloaded! The rest of the time, it is there as a back up if needed.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000116 163347 msg00892.tex]

658
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Alternator - Dynamically Balancing

Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:04:33

In a message dated 11/4/99 9:47:53 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

Does anyone know anything about dynamically balancing belt-driven alter-

nators, specifically on IO-520-E engines, or in general? The left alternator
of our Be55 sheared an alternator mounting bolt yesterday.

Good Afternoon Tom,

I know that Terry Norris of Aircraft Systems, Rockford, Illinois does it all of the time.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991104 140433 msg10159.tex]

659
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Baggage Net
Mon, 13 Apr 1998 23:58:53

Good Evening Ray Lockhart,

In a message dated 98-04-13 21:08:13 EDT, you write:

Unlike, the arrow which I had before the V35B, the baggage compartment
of the Bo does not have any straps or other way of securing baggage or
the other miscellaneous stuff that accumulates back there. I am looking for
some kind of a netting which I could secure to the floor and just hook and
unhook when I put ”stuff” back there.

The airplane came with a netting device and I imagine they would be available from
Raytheon. There should be four metal clips on the aft end of the baggage compartment
and four more on the forward end under the aft side of the rear seat. I am a little tight
on time right now (gotta get ready for Sun ’n Fun) but if you haven’t found them by the
first of May, ask again and I will find the part numbers for you. I would think that there
must be some after market netting suppliers that would be cheaper than Raytheon.
The factory restraining system works well.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980413 235853 msg01966.tex]

660
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Baggage Net
Tue, 14 Apr 1998 10:38:44

Good Morning Ray Lockhart,

This morning while loading our airplane for the trip to Lakeland, I took the time to
look for part numbers on the cargo net assembly. While I found none, I did note that
the net unit was made by Aeroquip. There is an number on the buckles, 31104.
Incidentally, the factory net has special clips to fasten to the cleats mounted in your
airplane. In addition, it is FAA approved for the purpose.
I would suggest that you at least look at a factory unit before you try to replace it with
something else. It is very well made and easy to use.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980414 103844 msg01975.tex]

661
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Bonanza Seating
Sat, 1 Jul 2000 05:35:58

In a message dated 6/30/00 10:36:46 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I have an Aeron chair in my office, which I find really comfortable (YMMV).

The interesting thing about the chair is the upholstery, which is a nylon
pellicle material- no padding of stuffing, just the stretched open cell pellicle.

Good Morning Bill,

Way back in the olden days before air-conditioning was common, every auto supply
store sold a unit which consisted of a seat and back pad hinged together so that it could
be placed on the seat and behind the driver. That pad was about one half inch thick
and was constructed of a metal coil spring covered with an open reed type mesh. It
allowed air to circulate between your butt, back and the chair or seat in the car, OR
AIRPLANE!
The DC-3 and the DC-4 were especially hot and sweaty. Ventilation was very poor. We
often flew with the side windows open.
But I digress! Many pilots carried those little car seat ventilation pads with them to use
in the threes and fours. It really helped a lot. I haven’t seen them in years.
We called them ”cool stools”!
I would think that something such as you describe would be great!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000701 053558 msg10421.tex]

662
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Bonanza on Floats
Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:58:16

In a message dated 1/6/99 1:04:23 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Does anybody know how well a Bonanza floats (on water that is)?

Hi Frank,
I don’t have any idea myself, but I believe there was an article in the ABS mag a couple
of months ago about a German gentleman who ditched in the Pacific. Have you checked
out what it had to say?
My recollection is that the aircraft sank rather quickly.
I remember something from my youth about a trip Dick Merrill made over the Atlantic
in a Consolidated cabin single and as recall the story, he filled the wings with Ping-Pong
balls. Always seemed like a good idea to me!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990106 145816 msg00256.tex]

663
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Chart and Approach Plate Storage

Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:07:29

Good Morning Tim Freeze,

In a message dated 10/25/98 3:03:24 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

Ive been trying to figure out the best way to stow and retrieve my charts
and approach plates in the Bonanza. Ive been keeping the bag in the back
seat but that is really in the way of the back seat passengers. Im sure
someone has already figured a better way and has some optimal flight bag
that fits just right.

I think this is an excellent topic for discussion! My Jeppesen lower forty- eight coverage
is currently contained in ten overstuffed manuals. Eight for the approach plates, one for
the enroute charts and one for the Notams, Preferential routes, Area Charts and such.
With the rapid increase in approaches associated with satellite navigation, that number
is bound to grow dramatically. It takes three more binders now than it did four years
ago.
The amount of space under or forward of the front seats ahead of the spar varies quite
a bit on the various models of the Bonanza. It will help a lot if any storage suggestions
will include the type and model of aircraft being flown.
Tim has mentioned the navigation data source he is using and that too is important
information.
My aircraft is a 1978 V35B. I tend to select the four or five manuals I will need on any
particular leg and place them on the front floor vertically oriented and book shelf style
against the front side of the spar cover. To keep them somewhat organized I use a soft
leather bag purchased from Bridgestone many years ago.
As an aside, the bag I have is no longer available from that source. I tried to order a
couple more and even though the ad description was still the same, the product delivered
was nowhere near the same. The new ones were too floppy to be used at all. The original
bags I have are well bound around the top and are stiff enough to give some semblance
of order.
If I end up with more than a couple of books out of the bag, things rather fall apart!
I have seen carriers made of aluminum utilized by various corporate pilot friends that
were built to specific dimensions to fit in various spots around their corporate jets. They
were generally open on the top and one side so as to allow easy removal of the contents
and equipped with a leather strap for carrying purposes which would stow easily out of
the way.
My wife and I both have rather short legs and we have the seats fairly far forward most
of the time while flying. There seems to be adequate room under our legs for the type

664
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

of storage we use. What we need is a better container or containers for the equipment.
Something like that would be nice but I am too lazy to make such.
Another area that I have gazed at lustily in my airplane is the space forward of my right
seat passenger and over the rudder pedal position. My airplane is set up as a strictly
single pilot operation. No dual column and the rudder pedals are stowed down under
the rugs. We tend to stuff as much heavy baggage up in that area as possible. I have
wondered if some enterprising designer couldn’t figure out a system for storing those
heavy manuals in that space with some organized container system.
My wife’s legs are too short to ever need that space and it would certainly help the CG
situation in airplanes such as mine which have some difficulty staying in the envelope.
Can’t wait to see what the group comes up with!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981025 080729 msg06258.tex]

665
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Cold Weather Operation

Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:43:52

Good Morning Ken Burrows,

In a message dated 11/13/98 7:59:40 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

It appears that I will be getting a tie-down spot that will permit me to

plug in an engine heater this winter for the IO 520 BA in my F33A. I’d
appreciate hearing about the group’s experience with the various brands.

I think I would investigate the options available for heating the cylinders by a method
other than the one Tanis normally uses. They put a probe in the spot designed for the
cylinder head temperature probe. If you have or intend to install an engine monitoring
system with provisions for a six cylinder CHT, special adapters are required and it gets
to be expensive and somewhat of a mess.
There are bands which fit around the base of the barrel near the case which claim to
supply much more even heat and I saw something a week or so ago concerning a heater
which was encased in the valve rocker cover gasket. That either by itself or in consort
with the barrel heater should be neat!
A heated engine is awfully nice to have but some of the overhaulers are claiming they
are starting to see additional corrosion effects in engines where the heater is left on all
of the time the aircraft is idle. The recommendation some of them make is that the
heater only be turned on 12 to 24 hours before an intended operation of the engine.
Tanis recommends it be used any time the engine is not in operation.
I have no personal knowledge either way. Just thought that you might like to make
some further inquiries if you are going to go that route.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981113 094352 msg06897.tex]

666
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Cold Weather Operation

Wed, 5 Jan 2000 22:24:41

In a message dated 1/5/00 7:33:01 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

The question is, what is the best way to go, six spark plug gasket probes,
or a mixture of JPI and Tanes?

Use the JPI probes in the cylinder wells and add either the Tanis valve cover gasket
heaters or the other brand cylinder heater that wraps around the barrel. Don’t mess
around with sparkplug gasket heat sensors unless there are NO other options.
Happy Skies,
Old Coot Bob
[ARTICLES/20000105 222441 msg00294.tex]

667
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Control Locks
Fri, 26 May 2000 13:54:23

In a message dated 5/26/00 10:14:42 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Anybody know of one? Further, this accident suggests that the control
lock should definitely be an annual inspection item, and the aircraft should
not pass if the control lock is defective. Is this a requirement?

Good Afternoon Bob,

Just my opinion, but I don’t see the control lock as a required piece of equipment and I
definitely do not inspect it as part of an annual inspection.
Furthermore, I would argue strongly against it being made a mandatory item. If the
insertion of the control lock was such that it would cause damage to the airplane or
it’s controls, that would be a different story, but the absence of a control lock does not
seem to me to be of any particular significance and the type of control lock the operator
chooses to use should be up to that operator.
If he chooses to use the one supplied by Beech and feels that it should only be used
if it is in the condition that it was when new, then I guess it would be the operators
responsibility to see that the lock and it’s blocking device are maintained in the new
condition.
Any lock which is inserted near the control stick or wheel of the control system is only
good for relatively light loads. If the aircraft is to be subjected to extremely high winds,
the controls should be battened externally. That was the method used for the DC-3 and
still recommended for any aircraft which must be left outside in extreme conditions.
I have seen aircraft where the internal components of the control system were damaged
because the loads applied from the control surface toward the cockpit control device
exceeded the design strength of those components. If the cockpit control device is
pinned, all of those loads are applied to the cables, brackets, rods and bell cranks which
make up the system. If the control surfaces are secured externally, no loads are applied
to the control system components. My youngest son has a Beechcraft E-18S which is
equipped with a cockpit control lock device. It was parked outside at San Carlos a few
years ago when the area was hit by very strong winds. Some reports were that the wind
was as high as 100 mph. It was blowing from the rear of his aircraft toward the front.
The control column failed due to overload. There were no existing cracks or defects in
the column. It was just plain subjected to loads beyond the design criteria. He now
parks the aircraft without the elevator lock installed. If the wind is blowing from the
rear, it will press down on the elevator and hold it against the stop. If the wind is
blowing from the front, it will merely blow the surface up and cause no problem at all.
If the surface is held against the stop and the surface fails or the stop fails, that should
be easy to spot. If the control lock is inserted in the cockpit, as so many are today, it is
not out of the realm of concern that internal damage to brackets and cable lead devices

668
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

could occur which would not be easy to spot.

The place to direct our attention is to proper preflight action to inspect the control
system for freedom of movement and integrity. That should be followed by the use of a
checklist, either written or memory, which includes a check of the controls.
Beyond that, we should all be encouraged to use the flight controls in all aircraft to
provide whatever aid they can for taxiing the aircraft. If we develop proper habits of
control usage, a malfunctioning control should become obvious long before it creates a
problem.
We have a tendency to want to make our airplanes foolproof by applying rules and
regulations. Trying to legislate the proper use of a control locking device seems about
as practical as passing a law making it illegal to have an accident.
Education, not regulation, please!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000526 135423 msg08723.tex]

669
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Cowl Flaps
Mon, 11 Aug 1997 16:19:44

To: Ron Davis,

It has been my understanding that cowl flaps come out into the breeze so as to create a
suction and pull the air through.
Many years ago some friends and I were were working on an STC for improved cooling
in an L-5 glider tow plane. We experimented with lots of different shapes and angles of
fixed cowl flaps and found that there was a fairly precise angle and extension into the
airstream that gave us optimum cooling.
I guess we can hope that Beech did the same sort of experimentation on the Bonanza.
As far as operation at high speeds, I agree that the loads can be quite high. At various
times when I have forgotten to close them, the loads seemed so heavy that I slowed
down to adjust them. It probably wasn’t necessary but it made me feel better!
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970811 161944 msg01538.tex]

670
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Dual Yoke
Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:06:59

Good Morning Larry Grimm,

In a message dated 98-04-30 04:07:14 EDT, you write:

How involved is this (read, how much downtime and installation cost)?

The installation is a no brainer PROVIDED there are no electrical connections to the

wheel. If there are no wires etc. to mess with the easiest way is to just pull one yoke
from the column and stick on the other. A five minute job if you have a very slow
mechanic.
If there are wires to the wheel, some people take the control wheel off the yoke and
reinstall it on the one being installed. Takes a little extra time and requires some
tightening and safetying.
If you own the yoke yourself and intend to switch back and forth often, I would suggest
having control wheels attached to both yokes and installing a quick disconnect on the
wiring which will take it back to a no brainer job.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980430 110659 msg02208.tex]

671
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Dual Yoke
Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:50:15

In a message dated 9/28/00 12:01:14 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

All you folks who advocate single yokes might ask yourselves the following:

OK

If I owned a dual yoke, would I trade it in on a single?

Yes

f I needed one, and they cost the same, would I choose a single yoke over
a dual?

Absolutely! My current Bonanza had a dual yoke when I bought it and it was traded
for a single wheel yoke.

Instructors and examiners who fly with single yokes should be fired - after
the psychiatric examination.

So, if I ever work for you, feel free to fire me!

Incidentally, isn’t that a statement of opinion and not a question?

Aside from the extra room afforded a passenger, there isn’t any justification
for a single yoke.

Your opinion, but not mine! you have just as much right to your opinion as I have to
mine.
My wife is a petite 108 pound lady and she enjoys all of the extra room and convenience
of not having the control column in the way of her knitting and reading materials and
the pleasure of being able to pile all sorts of paraphernalia on the floor sans the rudder
pedals. I like the single pilot cockpit. Fortunately there is a dual column for you and
the current regulations allow you to have one installed.

Fact is, if they’re that big, they probably have no business being there.

I am a rather large person, but I am not sure why you feel big folks have no business
flying Bonanzas. Lot’s of us do fly them and have gotten along quite nicely for many
years. Are you a little person?

And if they can over power the plane from their side, you (the instructor)
shouldn’t be there.

This one I find hard to comment on. I have heard stories all of my life concerning
problems that occurred when a student ”froze” on the controls. Fortunately, it never

672
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

happened to me, but I have heard stories of students overpowering instructors regardless
of what type of controls were installed.
Do you feel that all instructors should be stronger than their students?

That $3,500.00 saved will likely be the last thing that goes through your
mind. Single yokes were someones lame idea to save a few bucks.

John, I am afraid you have failed to consider the real reason that the Bonanza and many
other airplanes designed when the Bonanza was designed had the throw over column in
the first place.
I don’t remember the exact dates that apply, but prior to WWII there was a regulation
which stated that no primary flight controls could be available in the airplane that were
accessible to anyone in the airplane unless one of the persons at those dual controls was
a certificated and current flight instructor.
If you will look at a J-3 Cub, a Fairchild 24, Luscombe Silvaire or any other stick
controlled airplane of the era, you will find that there was originally a pin or other easily
removed device which held the passenger seat control stick in place. When the aircraft
was flown by a single pilot carrying passengers for other than instruction by a licensed
instructor, the stick had to be removed. For the Taylor Crafts and many other wheel
controlled airplanes, the pin required that you get under the panel to remove the right
side wheel. A little more difficult, but still doable. Beech, Spartan, Cessna and many
of the other more sophisticated builders complied with the regulation by providing a
throwover column along with an optional, easily removable, second control wheel.
That was the regulatory climate when the Bonanza was designed. I think the require-
ment to not have a control wheel available to a passenger was stupid, but a lot of rules
have been promulgated that many of us feel are stupid. If enough feel that way, the
regulations can generally be changed. Those regulations were.
It appears that you and I have totally different viewpoints as to what the privileges and
responsibilities of a pilot should be. Fortunately for me, most of the FEDs and all of
my employers seem to have understood my position.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000928 135015 msg14201.tex]

673
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Dual Yoke
Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:38:33

In a message dated 2/28/01 9:09:38 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Somewhere it is written that the yoke in the Bo is down and the Baron is
up. Mine in the A35 is down. Up just ain’t right.
Jim N.

Good Evening Jim and All,

It is my recollection that all of the early ones that were factory installed came with the
V point up.
Some of the real leggy guys wanted them upside down and so a lot were installed that
way to meet the owners wishes. This is getting a little foggy in my memory, but I believe
the early center control shafts were machined with two holes on either side to allow two
positions of the single column for either pilot.
That also allowed the dual column to be installed either way.
Since the seats were lower in all of those airplanes equipped with bench seats, the position
of the yoke in the lower position was more comfortable for all but the tallest long legged
aviators.
Things changed when they went to those adjustable seats and set everybody up higher.
That made the low wheel position uncomfortable for many. I, personally, have always
preferred the lower control wheel position.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010228 223833 msg04912.tex]

674
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Dual Yoke - Instruction

Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:59:15

In a message dated 9/28/00 1:40:15 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

So, why would a professional flight instructor / DE be reticent about taking

on the task? My feeling is that this is a perception issue, not reasoned
through. Also, is the demonstration of instrument skill considered to be a
high risk? Why?

Good Morning Bill,

My feeling is that it is strictly a ”fear of the FEDs” thing. Unfortunately, that feeling
is probably very well justified.
The FAA has many very fine and knowledgeable aviators. Most have a sincere desire to
be involved in aviation and try to do a good job. Unfortunately, there are a few who
don’t quite know how to handle the responsibility they have been given.
We end up with something like the Hoover case and the ”brakes on the right side” fiasco
that we just went through. The FAA is a little like the medical profession, they know
they have some real losers on board, but have difficulty deciding how to get rid of them.
They also are very protective of their own and unless the situation is as egregious as the
Hoover and ’right side brakes’ deal, the rest just kinda go along.
I started instructing in 1949. My heaviest spate of Bonanza instructing was from about
1953 to 1970 or so. I started several students from scratch and never found the need
for a dual column. The vast majority of instructors did the same. Some of the FEDs
wanted a dual column for the checkride, but not all. None of examiners I used in those
days had any qualms about giving a check ride in a Bonanza with the single control
wheel.
I doubt if there are many aviators with any real experience in the Bonanza who would
hesitate to give instruction and check rides in a Bonanza from a strictly safety viewpoint,
but many of the examiners rely on the examining authority either as a source of direct
income or as a draw to bring customers to their flight training operation.
The designation as an examiner is a lot harder to come by now than it was years ago
and is much more trouble to maintain.
When I became an examiner, (never for airplanes, just gliders) it was merely a matter of
a FED contacting me and saying: ”Hey Bob we need a glider examiner in the Chicago
area, would you consider handling it?” I said yes, went for a ride in a glider with the
FAA inspector and I was an examiner.
It is different now!
Most of the current crop don’t figure it is worth arguing with the system.

675
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

The BPPP has gone through this battle continuously with mixed results. They have had
letters which allowed them to instruct and then there have been letters which said maybe
they could and maybe they couldn’t. For a while some of the individual instructors had
letters which said they could instruct with a single control wheel column. Ron Vickrey
worked hard on the program while he was president with few concrete results.
I believe Jack Hirsch is now the head of that program. Maybe he will chime in and let
us know what the current status is.
If I were doing a lot of instructing in my airplane, I would probably purchase a dual
column, equip it with dual control wheels, put an appropriate plug on the wiring with
a receptacle in the panel and not fight the program either.
If everything is set up so that nothing has to be switched or transferred between the
two columns, they can be changed in five minutes. Just be careful to make sure the gear
comes off with the column and doesn’t want stay on the shaft! Even if it does, resetting
it back on it’s base isn’t difficult, but will add a few minutes to the job. Make out a
weight and balance showing it both ways. Put both in the equipment list with an ”or”
between the two and make a log book entry every time it is changed. That should keep
it legal with even the most fastidious rule follower.
The new manufacture control column that is offered in the ABS magazine looks like the
one I would most likely choose. The name escapes me, but I looked at it in SAT. I liked
it.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000928 095915 msg14178.tex]

676
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Dual Yoke - Instruction

Thu, 28 Sep 2000 15:52:57

In a message dated 9/28/00 1:51:37 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

The thrust of my comments were directed at instructors and examiners who

would choose to instruct and or test in a plane that (IMO) they couldn’t
control, and at folks who would choose to take instruction and be tested
in planes with single yokes. Sure, the instructor or examiner could GET
control after a few seconds. And I expect that throwing that yoke over
takes the same amount of time,

And I guess you have missed my point that many of us did instruct in Bonanzas with
the single column for many years quite successfully. I never felt that I had any more or
any less control in one that was equipped with a dual yoke than one that only had a
single.
You state: ”who would choose to instruct and or test in a plane that (IMO) they couldn’t
control, ”
I certainly never instructed in an airplane I couldn’t control. I doubt if any other
examiner or instructor did either.
Whether the control wheel is in front of the student or in front of me, I always felt fully
capable of flying the airplane. I can assure you that I never considered trying to move
the wheel to my side of the airplane to attain that control.
If you have read all of the messages on this thread, you are aware that many of us feel
quite comfortable with the single column. Others do not. I haven’t heard anyone state
that they are willing to give instruction in an airplane they can’t control.
I guess it depends on what you feel is necessary to get the job done safely. I am happy
with the single column, but if the law says I have to use a dual one, I will use a dual
one and try to get the law changed. That is the way the system works.
How many hours of instructing do you have and in what type of aircraft?
All of us are products of our experience. Yours must be quite different from mine.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000928 155257 msg14208.tex]

677
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Dual Yokes
Mon, 22 Mar 1999 19:12:35

Good Evening Tom,

In a message dated 3/22/99 5:33:12 PM Central Standard Time, you wrote:

As I understand it, Bonanza dual yokes (with aileron trim) are an inverted
V, while Baron dual yokes are an upright V shape.

I am sure you have a lot more experience with dual yokes than do I, but I think we
should mention that the early Bonanzas did not have an aileron trim and therefore the
early dual columns were not equipped with one either!
The ”aileron trim”, which is merely a spring to help hold the wheel one way or the other
was originally an after-market device, not a Beech product. I don’t remember whether
they developed their own or adopted the after-market device in the same manner as
they offered factory installation of Brittain tip tanks.
In any case, there were a large number of Bonanzas built and flown without an aileron
trim and a whole lot of factory dual Bonanza columns sold without the aileron trim
function.
The legality of using a column without a trim spring on an airplane that was never
produced without it is definitely open to question, but there are still a lot of them being
flown quite successfully without that little spring!
It seems to me that the question gets back to that insidious ”minor alteration” or ”major
alteration” decision.
The early column provided a high and a low setting for the single yoke. When that was
changed to a single position, it affected the positioning of some of the dual yokes on
airplanes that had been built with or without the high and low position.
Adapting the aircraft to use one type or the other once again brings us back to the
question of an interpretation of whether or not a local approval is needed to install one
style or the other yoke on the various airplanes.
I am confident that the actual mechanics of doing so are relatively simple. As you say,
there could be some differences of opinion as to legality.
In my days of operating a Beech dealership and a 141 flight school, we often used the
same dual yoke on all manner of Bonanzas, Twin Bonanzas, Barons and Travelairs. We
might have had more than one in stock, but I am reasonably confident we used the same
dual yokes on all models without a problem. I was not active in the shop at the time
and really don’t recall whether or not any modifications were necessary or performed.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob

678
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

[ARTICLES/19990322 191235 msg03157.tex]

679
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Eclipse Personal Jet

Thu, 8 Jun 2000 18:35:59

In a message dated 6/8/00 4:03:24 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

The early Boeings I flew had a pneumatic pressurization controller which

tended to be fairly sluggish.

Good Evening Barry,

All very true! And remember how the tar from the smokers would make the valves hang
up and then go ape when they finally let go?
I would take crew members who were smokers down and show them what was causing
the erratic pressurization bumps they complained about.
To make any pressurization system operate optimally for the individual flight can take
a fair amount of attention. The one on the 58P did a pretty good job though, even if it
was left alone to it’s own devices. Not as good as when you and I were trying to keep
the folks in back happy, but at least adequate.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000608 183559 msg09360.tex]

680
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Eclipse Personal Jet

Thu, 8 Jun 2000 20:14:28

In a message dated 6/8/00 6:33:52 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Back in the 80’s when I was working for The Labs in NJ, someone from
Boeing gave a talk regarding airliners and engineering.
He asked the audience (as I recall), ”Can anyone guess why older airliners
pressurize better than new ones but soon, we believe, will be moot?”
The answer: cigarette smoke.
Howard

Good Evening Howard,

The tars from the cigarette smoke were so bad, or should I say good, at sealing the little
cracks and crevices, that when the DC-6s were a couple of years old, Douglas had to
redesign the outflow valve and make it bigger. The tars had made the fuselage so tight
that the door could not let enough air out even when wide open. The early airplanes
were retrofitted with the bigger out flow valve doors and the new ones were delivered
that way.
Happy Skies
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/20000608 201428 msg09366.tex]

681
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Electric Trim
Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:47:22

In a message dated 2/16/01 1:56:29 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I’m considering getting electric trim installed. If any of you had this con-
version done, do you think it was worth the expense?

Good Afternoon Eric,

It Depends!
I like being able to trim with my left thumb. Just like the old 747! Makes me feel as
though I am back gainfully employed.
If you ever decide to buy an autopilot that has an automatic trim function, you will
need to have an electric trim to utilize that feature.
It is nice to be able to click off the autopilot and have the airplane in trim.
On the other side, I have always felt that the trim wheel on the Bonanza was in just the
right spot and my hand falls to it’s use very comfortably.
The trim system weighs almost as much as a gallon and a half of fuel and most of that
weight is way back in the tail of the airplane!
On top of all that, it costs a lot of money.
I am very happy with my electric trim and the autotrim function on my autopilot.
Would I do it again?
Probably not.
The cost is a factor, but the principal reason that I would not do it again has to do with
the weight and the placement of that weight.
I find that I have gone overboard adding toys to my airplane and I now have a heavy,
slow old clunker instead of a light and sprightly machine!
The big engine helps, but just like you can’t beat cubic inches, you can’t beat light
weight!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010216 174722 msg04017.tex]

682
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Exhaust Resonators
Sun, 23 Jan 2000 13:20:37

In a message dated 1/23/00 11:14:45 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

No kidding. We should talk about these resonators. Are they obtrusive

looking? Do they hinder the performance of the airplane or engine? Do
they sience the exhaust at all? What do they look like?

Good Morning John,

I had a set of them on my V35B for about eight hundred hours. I perceived a small
decrease in cabin noise, but that might have been because I wanted it to be so!
My neighbors reported that they thought it was a little quieter, but we did not do any
measurements that would tell us for sure!
Four hundred of those hours I had the four blade on the airplane and with that combi-
nation, the airplane was a very quiet, good neighbor!
I think the effectiveness of the glass packs decreased fairly rapidly as they aged. They
are rather bulky, though some folks told me they looked ”cool”.
I removed them at the same time I went to the BDS baffling and the three blade prop.
Since they are slightly larger and a little heavier, logic tells me that there must have
been some deletorious effect on performance, but I didn’t notice one way or the other.
I didn’t care for the extra weight hanging on the tail pipe brackets and they are difficult
to keep aligned in a manner such that they don’t strike other portions of the airframe
as the engine twists and turns during flight.
For What It’s Worth!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000123 132037 msg01446.tex]

683
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Fixed Step - Removal

Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:22:05

In a message dated 12/7/00 2:33:21 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Can this be done legally [Remove the fixed step], easily, or would it be yet
another ten-year FAA certification program?

Good Afternoon John,

As always, it depends.
If your A&P and your IA both agree that it can be done as a minor alteration, I would
not hesitate to remove the step, make a logbook entry and adjust the weight and balance
in the ships papers. There are some FEDs and a few IAs who will say: ”If it came on
the airplane when it came from the factory, it must be on the airplane or removed via
a local approval or other method of FAA approval.”
I removed mine several years ago and did just that. My A&P and IA (me) agrees that it
is a minor alteration. I think it is a defensible position, but I have not been challenged!
The one thing that one must watch is that excessive loads are not applied toward the
trailing edge of the flap that could lead to major overload and damage to the spot where
the actuator attaches to the flap.
I caution folks to step as far forward on the flap as possible to reduce the load on the
actuator attachment. I carry a step stool with me if there is likely to be a passenger
that may have trouble making the BIG step to the front of the flap.
Mine has been in that configuration for at least five or six years and probably fifteen
hundred hours.
As to any change in speed, I would WAG a decrease in drag that allows no more than
a one knot increase in speed. The streamline tube aligned with the wind creates much
less drag than it does when ninety degrees to the wind as is done with the retractable
version.
Any help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001207 162205 msg17353.tex]

684
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Fixed step
Sat, 4 Oct 1997 15:28:53

Hi Bill Fleming,
No that is not the type step used on the early airplanes.
Yours is the one used on the early Debbies. The retractable ones are a long straight
piece of streamline tubing that has the flat high drag side faced fore and aft with the
narrow thin section oriented abeam the aircraft. Look at some older Bonanzas and you
will see a lot of them.
Beech dropped it when they moved the baggage compartment back further into the
fuselage and the step support tube which retracted into the fuselage would have been in
the way.
The step you have was one of the things they did with the early Debs when they were
trying to make it a low priced alternative to the Bonanza. It looks fairly draggy to me
but I don’t have any knowledge of what difference removing it would make. I would
guess at a couple of knots.
As I said before I have the newer fixed streamline type and I notice no difference with it
on or off but there must be some change. I have had some of the more speed concious
people tell me they gain one or two knots when it is removed.
I suppose that if I wanted to make a comparison check I would try to find a nice stable
air mass and fly the airplane tests a couple of hours after sundown.
Make a flight with the step on, record the numbers as accurately as possible. Land and
take the step off and then make a second flight. Then put the step back on and make
a third flight. If the numbers are the same on the first and third flight your numbers
are probably fairly valid. If they are different you might as well throw the whole bunch
out because the conditions must have changed in the air mass. That’s what makes
comparison flight testing so tough.
Have fun and let us all know how you make out!
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19971004 152853 msg01937.tex]

685
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Flap Position Decal

Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:07:24

In a message dated 7/21/99 12:27:58 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Where to locate this decal? I think I asked this before but didn’t come away
with a clear conclusion. My P-model does not have a flap angle indicator.
I want something I can glance at to verify the flap angle. Current I count
for 6 seconds to deploy approximately 20o of flap when turning base leg.
Then full flaps on short final. I use a bolt/washer location on the flap now
as my visual check, but heck, I have the decal and want to apply it.
Did Beech ever ship a Bonanza with these decals? If so, where did they
locate them?

Good Afternoon John,

Yes, the stripes and notation on the left flap were standard for many years. I don’t
think they were decals though, I believe they were silk-screened.
The easiest way to position them is to roll in full right aileron (on the ground of course)
and then extend the flaps until the left one is lined up with the aileron. That should be
twenty degrees, if your ailerons are properly rigged. Sit in your normal in-flight position
and have someone mark the spot where your line of sight lines up with the trailing edge
of the wing structure ahead of the flap. Stick the twenty degree line there. For the ten
degree line, make a mark when the flaps are up and just cut the distance between that
mark and the twenty degree mark in half. For most of us, ten degrees will occur when
the screw in the middle of the large washer on each side of the flap support is aligned
with the trailing edge of the wing structure. If you want to get more scientific, you can
use a Smart Level or a standard bubble level protractor to measure the ten and twenty
degree positions from the full up position and then mark by eyesight from the cockpit.
Just be sure you don’t wiggle the airplane between the various measurements.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990721 140724 msg06296.tex]

686
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Gap Seals
Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:00:43

In a message dated 1/10/99 10:20:55 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Is air skeg modification still available; if so, where and how much?

I don’t know if it is still available or not, but in any case, it is IMNSHO, worthless!
The directions that come with it say that in order to gain maximum effectiveness, the
pilot should keep his/her feet on the rudder pedals. If that is done without the skeg,
the results are the same.
The skeg has some weight and it is in a terrible CG position for most of our airplanes. In
addition, in order to adequately inspect the tail bulkheads as required each one hundred
hours, the skeg must be removed before the bottom inspection plate may be removed.
If you want some help for the wiggle and don’t want to use your toes, buy either an Allied
Signal or S-Tec yaw damper, definitely more expensive and the weight/CG situation is
equally bad, but they both work great and they are working all of the time even when
the pilot has more pressing things to care about than the dutch roll characteristic of all
slab sided, taper winged aircraft.
Forget the skeg!!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990110 120043 msg00386.tex]

687
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Gap Seals
Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:29:40

In a message dated 4/20/00 11:05:10 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

...BUT don’t you think most people buy them [gap seals] for their assumed
speed increases...

Good Afternoon Jerry,

Always room for a difference of opinion, but I still have not formed an opinion on gap
seals due to my lack of direct involvement with them, however the evidence you cite and
that information offered by others would lead me toward forming an opinion that might
look at them with favor. Not there yet though.
On a purely conjectural basis, it would seem that gap seals would be at their greatest
effectiveness when the pressure differential between the top of the wing and the bottom
is the greatest and that would be when the airplane is flying slow or at high angles of
attack. I would suspect very little effect when the airplane is being shoved through the
sky by raw power and the big wing is nothing but parasitic drag! I would suspect that
the cruise speed at altitude when the aircraft is flying close to the best L/D speeds might
be substantially increased if the gap seals do the job that is claimed for them.
That is an uninformed guess though.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000420 132940 msg06768.tex]

688
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Gust lock
Sat, 12 Feb 2000 20:25:44

In a message dated 2/12/00 12:01:19 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Gee, I parked the N35 down at Mojave this week. I used the old Cessna
gust lock technique (pilot’s seat belt around the yoke). This seems pretty
low rent for a Bonanza, plus it cocks the ailerons funny. (Luckily, the winds
didn’t hit the 70 knot gusts, etc. that I’m used to seeing down there.)

Good Evening Bill,

The gust lock for my airplane measures .312, so I imagine the hole is nominally a 5/16th
of an inch one. Any hunk of rod with about two inches of length to insert in the fitting
should be adequate to secure the aileron and elevators. I believe the size has been
standard ever since the straight 35, but I don’t have one handy to measure.
On the early airplanes, the lock was inserted from the bottom up and it had a small
metal plate which got in the way of putting in the key and clamped around the throttle
to prevent it being opened fully.
On the later airplanes, the lock is installed from the top down and the shaft has a 180
degree bend to allow fastening to a plastic piece of junk which is supposed to block the
operation of the engine controls.
I would fashion anything that seemed reasonable to you and use it!
I can’t see how the FAA could get after anyone for using any sort of a gust lock which
doesn’t damage the airplane just as long as it is removed before flight is attempted!
Personally, I would discourage the use of an external control lock on the tail surfaces
unless it was a full airfoil shaped device that completely immobilized the surface. The
locks which we use on gliders when the surfaces are removed for storage and transporta-
tion are that type. I definitely would not attempt to add a control lock which fit on the
balance tabs!
As to locking the rudder pedals, for many years I carried an eight inch length of 3/8
diameter steel rod which I inserted in the hollow of the rudder pedals just below the
hinge line. I would shove it in one with the pedals displaced, then line them up and
shove it into the other pedal till the lengths were about equal in each. The hole is just
a little under 7/16, but 3/8 seemed to work OK.
I quit using that when I noted that no one else used such a lock and no one seemed to
have any trouble!
My suggestion would be to get a six inch length of 5/16 inch steel rod and fasten a red
flag to it. A ninety degree bend would make it easier to insert and remove. Just don’t
forget to remove it before flight!

689
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

I would forget the rudder pedal locks.

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000212 202544 msg02842.tex]

690
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Gust locks
Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:36:06

Good Afternoon All,

Just a couple of comments on gust locks in general.
I think it is reasonable to consider that the closer the restraint is placed to the point at
which the force is applied, the better the lock will work.
The Douglas DC-3 used a set of control locks that were applied to the trailing edge of
the surface so as to lock the surface to the adjacent structure. That seemed to work
quite well, but they were something of a bother to affix and remove and there were cases
where a takeoff was attempted with the control locks still installed. Ruins your whole
day!
The company for whom I flew DC-3s, rigged up a shock cord that we could put between
the two control wheels to stabilize the ailerons in light wind conditions and for small
periods of time such as an enroute stop. Handy device.
If a lock is applied to the control column shaft as is the Beech factory unit, the strain
is felt by the shaft, it’s components, the cables and fittings to the surface as well as the
surface to be protected.
If a lock is placed on the control wheel of the Bonanza instead of the control column shaft,
then the wheel, chain and the crossarm are added to the list of components exposed to
the strain.
Does this make a difference?
I know of at least one case where an aircraft (not a Bonanza) with a control lock applied
to the control wheel and the rudder pedals had the control column shaft fail completely.
Had the control locks been of the type the factory supplied for the DC-3, there would
have been no strain whatsoever on the wheel, column or any other component other
than the control surface and adjacent structure.
If maximum restraint with a minimum stress on components of the control system is
desired the best control lock would be one that consists of a fitted component shaped
to conform to the airfoil of the primary surface and its movable portion.
There have been air carrier aircraft built that had cockpit operated control locks which
placed a mechanical stop directly between the movable surface and it’s surrounding
structure. That provided the desired restraint without putting any strain on the con-
necting devices between the control wheel and the surface.
Unfortunately there were cases where these locks were accidentally engaged during flight.
Not good either!
So what are we to do?

691
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

If your aircraft is to be exposed to extreme wind and weather conditions, fitted slip over
restraints such as are common on gliders would seem to be the best.
For everyday use and simple application the pin through the control column as used by
Cessna and Beech is probably OK, but it does expose all of the connecting hardware to
strain which may or may not be able to stand the strain imposed.
I personally prefer the pin through the column over the one fastened to the wheel as it
takes the crossarm, the chain and the control wheel itself out of the loop of restraint.
I have removed the plates that fit over the throttle and such and just use the column
lock pin with a small red flag attached. It makes it a lot easier to install and remove
but I suppose it would be possible to start the engine, taxi and attempt a takeoff with
the pin installed. I haven’t had the problem yet, but as senility sets in, it may happen!
Years ago, I used to place a 3/8 inch steel rod through the hollow of the rudder pedal
axis (one to the other) to restrain the rudder motion of the ruddervators. I haven’t done
that for the last twenty or twenty-five years and have noted no ill effects.
I guess I am agreeing with e.p. – If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
For what it’s worth.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990115 003606 msg00594.tex]

692
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Nose Wheel Tow Pins

Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:50:11

In a message dated 11/7/99 7:24:39 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

My hanger is a little uphill, and I’m getting concerned about pushing the
baron using the 1/4 inch pins on the nose gear....anybody have a reasonably
accurate idea of the actual weight on the nose wheel. If those litle pins fail
is seems that the sissors would part and the nose gear may extend to failure
at takeoff.
Thinking of building a ”lift and handle” attachment for the tug.

Good Evening Howard,

Those pins are supposedly designed to fail before damage is done to the mechanism. If
you designed something to apply towing forces elsewhere on the nose gear, it is possible
that structural damage may occur. Better that the pins should fail!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991107 235011 msg10295.tex]

693
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Pitot Tube
Tue, 9 Dec 1997 14:30:07

Good Morning Dave Cooke,

In a message dated 97-12-08 03:18:13 EST, you write:

Has anyone ever installed a heated pitot tube on a model 35? I ordered
a heated pitot tube from Aircraft Spruce. The chrome plated one pound
thing arrived a couple of days ago.

It has been many years since I have done one of those installations and I no longer
remember the details nor do I have the required paperwork. I do remember that I used
a Beech kit for the job.
The heated pitot tube is listed in the aircraft spec sheets as optional item number:
602. Heated pitot head installation, Beech Dwgs. 35-361100 1 lb. (+ 74)
I would suggest trying to find a copy of this drawing. If the parts you obtained from
aircraft spruce are the same as listed on the Beech drawings, an A&P could install it as
a minor alteration and no paper work other than a log book entry would be required.
You might start off by seeing what Raytheon would charge for the kit or the drawings.
Surprisingly, that is occasionally the cheapest way to go!!
If that doesn’t work out you will have to apply for a local approval through the 337
process. It shouldn’t be bad, but I would definitely get pre-approval before I cut any
metal.
Nothing is easy is it?
Safe Skies,
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19971209 143007 msg02669.tex]

694
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Portable O2 System
Wed, 13 Aug 1997 09:37:53

HI Keith,
I don’t know about the legality, that would require a little research but I have looked into
the quality of refill oxygen and what I found out was that the standards for ”Aviators
Breathing Oxygen” are the lowest of the standards for the three most common uses.
My local supplier informed me that when they fire up the equipment to prepare for
supplying oxygen they have to test for it’s quality and that when it meets the minimum
purity standard for ”Aviators Breathing Oxygen” they can start filling the tanks for us
and the airlines etc. After the equipment has run a little longer it is of a high enough
quality for medical uses. ( I understand there is very little difference between those
two) Then after the equipment has operated quite some time longer, the purity is up
to the standards required for welding. My supplier tells me that he makes a practice of
waiting till the purity is up to welding quality before he taps any off so as to simplify
his inventory control.
I have been told that moisture is sometimes added to medical oxygen but that it is
usually done at the point of use, not in the cylinders as delivered.
I don’t use breathing oxygen often, but when I do, I fill from my welding tanks. Proper
sanitation procedures should be followed. You need to have a tank with high enough
pressure for transfer, but that is about it.
I suppose some people have pumps to bring the pressure up for filling but every time
that I have been associated with tank filling it was done by using a bank of oxygen
tanks all manifolded together. The tank to be filled is hooked to the manifold, its valve
opened and then the tank with the lowest pressure is turned on. Once the pressures
have equalized and oxygen has stopped transfering, the valve on the ’low” tank is closed
and the next lowest one is opened and the procedure repeated with higher and higher
pressure tanks until the breathing tank is up to its required pressure. Usually around
1300 lbs. When the low tank is down to a couple of hundred lbs/sq in, it is relagated to
welding use until emptied.
Incidentally, I had an emergency some years ago requiring medical use of oxygen and I
used my welding equipment. When I checked with the attending physician he said that
was just fine and no moisture was necessary for what we were doing.
I personally would have no hesitation to use the equipment you have for the altitudes
you are talking about.
I would think that Nelson (I have found him very helpful) or any other aviation oxygen
equipment supplier would be able to clue you in on the legalities.
Yours,
Bob

695
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

[ARTICLES/19970813 093753 msg01554.tex]

696
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Pulsing Landing Lights

Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:53:56

In a message dated 2/28/00 7:38:46 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Around the patch, here at Prescott, especially on a pretty day like yester-
day, with a lot of ordinary pilots out, as well as the usual bunch of Emry
Riddle students out, most everyone keeps a light on all the time. It really
helps.

Good Morning Jerry,

Along that line, I really like the pulsing landing lights. While I don’t see them very
often, it does seem that those aircraft which are so equipped draw my eye much faster.
Those who have turned on their landing light are much easier to spot than those with
none at all, but the pulsating light really stands out for me.
Has anyone else an opinion on the pulsating light?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000228 085356 msg03759.tex]

697
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Pulsing Landing Lights

Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:52:56

In a message dated 2/28/00 12:38:09 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Doesn’t a pulsed lighting system like that tend to cut down on bulb life?

Good Afternoon Eric,

The jury is still out on that one. The proponents of the pulsating landing light claim
that the pulsing use of the light actually lengthens the life by keeping it at a better
operating temperature. I sure don’t know! I have not heard any complaints from those
who do have the pulsing units.
Hopefully someone who has extensive experience with the pulsing light will comment!
I would use the pulsing unit even if it cut my bulb life in half, but then, my bulbs seem
to last a long time anyhow!
Conspicuity lighting is a big help at night and I am beginning to believe that there is a
lot of room for improvement of our daylight conspicuity via various forms of lighting.
I believe Capitol Airlines was the first to use any sort of rotating beacon, When it
showed promise, United Air Lines and American Airlines equipped their airplanes with
red rotating beacons. It was astonishing to realize how many airplanes were out there
which we had not been seeing.
I would like to see someone get a set of small halogen lights approved for mounting in
the leading edge of my tip tanks. I believe there are some of those approved now in
various wing tips. I would think that those lights set up to flash alternately would be
great aid to daytime conspicuity.
I feel I spot the pulsing landing lights quite a while before I see strobe lights. I wonder
if anyone has done any scientific testing of that?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000228 145256 msg03792.tex]

698
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Rear Window - Opening In Flight

Tue, 6 Mar 2001 14:07:32

In a message dated 3/6/01 12:36:39 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

P.S. Now that she is getting older, I am concerned about her playing with
the emergency window release on the rear windows in flight while she is
strapped into her car seat. Any suggestions from the group as to how to
keep her from being able to flip the window open in flight that will not
present a safety hazard if we do have a need to open the window quickly?

Good Afternoon Glenn,

Let’s look at it this way. The normal way of opening the middle windows for ventilation
is via the handle which secures to the cabin side either by an overcenter action and a
couple of small clips or, on the later airplanes, by a small latch which must be moved to
allow the opening handle to be moved.
For emergency egress, you would have to pull the thin rod, (the one that provides the
hinge function) out to release the window.
I would imagine your primary fear is the your daughter might inadvertently release the
window to the ventilation position rather than that she might be able to remove the
emergency egress pin.
While the window being opened in flight to that ventilation position can be very scary,
it is unlikely to result in permanent damage or create any real safety hazard. I would
suggest that you devise a method of safetying the ventilation handle in the down position.
The emergency pin could still pulled by an adult or older child, but it would be difficult
for a young child to remove.
As to how best to deactivate the ventilation function, that depends on the age of the
airplane. On the early ones, I think I would just fasten some safety wire to the area
under the latch and wrap it around the portion which is lifted to provide ventilation.
On the later airplanes there might be a way to safety the latch or possibly a small wedge
could be made to stop the latch from being released, but I haven’t checked that out yet.
The idea of eliminating the ventilation function may be anathema to some of the FEDs
that are around, but I would have no hesitation to do it to my own airplane if I thought
there was a possibility that a small child might accidentally open the window to the
ventilation position.
If you think there is any possibility that the child could pull the safety egress pin, I would
safety that with a brass safety wire of sufficient strength that it would be difficult for a
small child too break, but still doable by an adult. Such a use of safety wire is common
on many aircraft to lessen the possibility of various safety devices being actuated.
That may border on the edge of what some folks think of as legality, but I think it would
be defensible at a hearing!

699
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010306 140732 msg05376.tex]

700
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Retractable Step
Sun, 5 Oct 1997 01:38:03

To Frank Woods
In a message dated 97-10-05 00:01:31 EDT, you write:

One would reason that this would assist the retraction of the nose gear.

I suppose that is one way of putting it!!

The major worry is that if the step refuses to come out or extend (for whatever reason)
the nose gear may not extend fully. That is why there is a small aluminum weak link
installed to attach the cable to the nose gear strut.
If that link is missing or made of too strong a material and the step freezes in the up
position it may well result (and has) in the nose gear not extending far enough to lock
down and then collapsing on landing.
When the original strength shock cords are replaced with stronger or multiple cords or
with a metal spring stronger than the one approved as an after market improvement,
the weak link often breaks as it is designed to do.
If the weak link is removed and the cable fastened directly to the fitting on the nose gear
strut or if the link is replaced with one made of a stronger material. It may continue to
operate fine for years, BUT if the step hangs up it can be very expensive.
Make sure that the proper weak link is installed
Yours,
Bob.Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19971005 013803 msg01940.tex]

701
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Retractable Step Speed Penalty

Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:05:00

Good Morning Buzz Rich,

In a message dated 98-02-05 02:07:58 EST, you write:

Some of the data might be hard to believe, but that is what the numbers
showed. For what it is worth, the results/numbers follow:

I have no doubt that these are the numbers you accurately derived with your flight tests,
but I wonder if you have ascertained that there was no subsidence or rising effect in the
airmass between the tests. The really accurate way to check the difference in speed is
to extend and retract the step several times on the same flight.
It has been some forty years since I performed such tests and my test airplane was a
straight model 35 with an E185-11 engine. The highest indicated airspeed was around
160 mph and the speed differences noted were quite consistently in the range of five mph
IAS at that speed and around four mph at around 130 mph IAS. I imagine that there
could be a slightly higher speed advantage at somewhat higher speeds possible with the
later airplane, but ten mph seems a little high.
Why don’t you arrange to set up your airplane so that the step can be extended and
retracted in flight and give it another series of checks? I would love to see the results of
that.
I did it in a manner that would probably be illegal today (maybe even then). I left
the rear shear web off (definitely illegal), took the little angle that attaches the retract
mechanism to the step off by removing the bolt through the step and had my then
five year old son climb into the baggage compartment and raise and lower the step on
command. I don’t think it would be too difficult to arrange some strong cord or light
cable so that the same thing could be done with the shear web installed and the cables
manipulated from the rear seat.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980205 110500 msg00771.tex]

702
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Retractable Step Speed Penalty

Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:43:22

Good Morning Bob Curry,

In a message dated 98-02-05 11:47:57 EST, you write:

But Bob, that still doesn’t give a completely accurate comparison with
an aircraft having the step completely removed. Although small, there is
still some drag with the step retracted because the bottom prtion is still
hanging out.
Regards, Bob...aka ”Picky Pete”

Absolutely agreed!!
I do believe though, that Buzz was speaking of comparing a retracted step with an
extended one. I can’t be positive because I have already deleted the message.
Remember too that the retractable step uses a piece of ”streamlined” tubing that has
the flat side ninety degrees to the airstream when the step is extended. It is a very high
drag item. When Beech went to the fixed steps, they used the tubing with it’s more
normal thin side opposed to the airstream and the leg is much shorter.
I have removed my step and don’t seem to notice any difference but I can not think
of any good and accurate way to get a comparison for such a small change in drag. I
suppose one could make a series of flights with the step on and off several times in one
day and that may compensate for subsidence and such but extreme accuracy is very
hard to come by.
Bob Siegfried Picky Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980205 124322 msg00775.tex]

703
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Retractable Step Speed Penalty

Sat, 7 Feb 1998 01:37:37

Good Morning Bob Newman,

In a message dated 98-02-06 23:23:11 EST, you write:

Good data, but applicable only to the older (I believe P35 and before)
Bonanzas that used a step with a round tube. The newer ones have a
streamlined tube, with reduced drag compared to the older design. I am
surprised that you measured differences are as great as they are.

The newer style steps are higher drag than the older steps if the older ones are retracting
properly.
The steps in question are the retractable steps. They are used on the airplanes without
the extended baggage compartment. Once the baggage compartment was extended to
the rear with the N35, there was no longer anyplace to retract the step.
The retractable step uses a ”streamline” piece of aircraft tubing for the leg of the step,
but it is oriented ninety degrees to the airstream to give maximum strength in the
direction load is applied. Since it is retracted for flight there is no reason to worry about
it’s drag.
When the Debbie first came out, it used the step with a round fixed (non- retractable)
tube as a cost saving effort consistent with the intent to produce a low cost Beech
competitor to the Piper Comanche.
The Bonanzas with a fixed step have always used the streamline tubing oriented in the
low drag orientation. (And they do break, I have never heard of the old retractable
unit breaking!) When the Debbie was upgraded to Bonanza standards, it received the
streamlined fixed step also.
Six thousand, five hundred and sixtyone Bonanzas were built with the retractable step.
That is well over half of those built.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980207 013737 msg00819.tex]

704
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Rigging
Thu, 7 Dec 2000 12:43:04

In a message dated 12/7/00 10:50:48 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

..and got my retractable step working again

Good Morning Steve,

If your step was completely extended, not partially retracted as some are want to do,
the retracted step should be good for at least four knots all by itself! Many years ago, I
had a straight 35 on which I made some flight checks of the drag produced by extending
and retracting the step manually while in flight.
With an E185-11 engine at about 60 percent cruise power, I would indicate five mph
more with the step retracted than with the step extended. My then seven or eight year
old son would sit in the baggage compartment and extend or retract the step when I
asked.
That retractable step caused a LOT of drag when left extended.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001207 124304 msg17342.tex]

705
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Rosen Sun Visor’s

Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:47:09

In a message dated 1/25/01 8:09:28 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

I’m on the opposite side, Pete. I think the Rosens are about the best thing
I’ve bought for the Bonanza. There was some list banter about the Ayers
a few years ago and the thing that sticks in my mind was the high quality
of workmanship. As I’ve said before, every time I try to save a hundred
bucks on a cheaper item, I regret it. And, I never let careless pilots drive
my flying machine! Al

Good Morning Al,

I’m with you! I don’t know if I would say they are the best thing I’ve bought, but I
would do it again.
I haven’t tried any clear view sunshade other than the Rosen, but I am very happy
with them. I can see traffic a lot better now, the adjustments help to place the sun
protection where it is needed most and the service and support from the company has
been excellent.
I have broken two of them, but it was strictly my fault. We all know that 1/8th inch
thick hard plastic sheeting doesn’t bend well!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010125 114709 msg01764.tex]

706
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Rosen Sun Visors

Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:26:32

In a message dated 1/25/01 11:57:31 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob, What did you do when a ”lens” (as they call them) was broken?
Factory wants $60 for a replacement. Did you just say ”after all, it IS an
airplane part” or did you find some more cost-effective way to replace one?
(Needless to say, I am in need).
Rich

Good Afternoon Rich,

The first time, I told them it was my fault and I expected to pay for the new one, but
they sent me one free.
The second time, I ponied up the big bucks!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010125 132632 msg01771.tex]

707
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Rotating Beacon
Tue, 7 Jul 1998 12:58:51

Good Morning George Vasick,

In a message dated 98-07-07 12:03:56 EDT, you write:

Is there a good alternative for a V-tail?

In the days of yore, when Mike Smith was doing his magic to the Bonanza airframe, it
was his thought to go to an all strobe system. Strobe lights with each required running
light. That does reduce the drag.
There are several options to accomplish that.
Both Grimes and Whelen provide combo units that are very easy to install and wing
tips or tip tanks that provide a space for the lights inside of a plastic lens also provide
an easy place to mount the strobe.
I personally like it best when the triple strobes are triggered so as to fire simultaneously
but some prefer the alternating method. Either one meets the FAA requirements.
At the time I installed my strobes, it was necessary to provide a power supply for each
strobe and wire them together with a trigger wire to obtain the simultaneous activation.
There might be something newer available now that is less work to install. In any case I
think you will find that the Whelen units are substantially cheaper if you are using new
rather than used components. Whelen has a very nice catalog and installation manual
that provides all of the information and STCs in one place.
As one who has come very close to taxiing over a small airplane that was sitting parked
or taxiing slower than I, I have become very sensitive to the requirement that there be
some light shining toward the rear to warn larger and faster moving aircraft that I am
in their way! The single white tail light just doesn’t do the job.
If you use strobes alone, you will find that some pilots will complain that they are being
blinded by your strobes and you will be requested to cease the operation thereof while
on the ground. For that reason I still like to have a rotating beacon on the top of the
fuselage as a conspicuity device mainly for operations on the ground at large and busy
airports. I have never had anyone complain of being blinded by the rotating beacon.
I have thought of providing a flush mounted light, such as a logo light, that pointed
toward the rear to provide the ground warning but have never gone ahead with the idea.
If you really don’t like the drag of the rotating beacon, ground operations could be a
problem.
Incidentally there was a serious accident at LAX a few years ago where a commuter
airplane was holding in position and an airliner hit it on landing. Since the commuter
was only equipped with strobes and had not yet been cleared for takeoff, the only light
visible to the rear was the white aft navigation light. While that accident was eventually

708
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

blamed primarily on the controller, it sure would have been nice if a decent conspicuity
light had been operating on the commuter airplane!
The round Grimes light is substantially smaller than the equivalent Whelen unit but
the cost of Grimes is astronomical. Sad!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980707 125851 msg03513.tex]

709
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Rotating Beacons
Sun, 3 Oct 1999 16:03:44

In a message dated 10/3/99 2:38:52 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

The avg overhaul cost from AVLight is $400 for the Grimes while the new
Whelen strobe-beacon is $350.

Good Afternoon John,

Yes, the prices charged by Grimes are outrageous! We are fortunate that Whelen has
stepped up and does provide relatively economical replacement equipment. I use them
whenever practical. I spoke to a Grimes representative several years ago and was told
that Grimes had made the decision that they didn’t want to mess with small GA aircraft.
They have the high priced corporate, airline and military market pretty well tied up and
they don’t bitch about the inflated prices like we do!
I have thought about replacing the upper beacon with two flush red lights flashing
alternately and pointing back toward where the large aircraft would be when overtaking
a Bonanza. The only time I really worry about being overrun is when taxiing! So far
I have not found quite the right light unit to use. When I do, I will apply for a local
approval for the flush system.
I like having a red rotating beacon on the belly to help when some hot rod aircraft is
overtaking me from the rear at a much higher rate of climb than I can maintain. Possibly
that could be replaced by the directed flush lights as well. Incidentally, the belly beacon
lights up the ground and helps warn those big iron pilots that something is in their way.
I use triple Whelen strobe lights timed to flash together and feel that they supply
adequate conspicuity when airborne. It would be nice to get rid of the drag of the
rotating beacon or beacons.
Happy Skies,
Old bob
[ARTICLES/19991003 160344 msg09051.tex]

710
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Speed Brakes
Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:54:02

In a message dated 2/6/01 8:50:56 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I would do speed brakes in a minute if the mod wasn’t $8,000+

Even if it were free, it would still add weight and, possibly, some drag.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010206 095402 msg02918.tex]

711
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Speed Brakes
Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:48:02

In a message dated 2/6/01 9:10:49 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

About 24 pounds total, if I remember correctly. No added drag (they’re

flush-mounted in the wing). About $10k installed sounds familiar, from
my Pagosa Springs days.

Good Morning Tom,

I know about the flush mounting, but some of my aerodynamicist friends have told
me that the speed brakes are very hard to get adequately sealed and they tend to
cause varying amounts of drag due to leakage and surface disturbance. Way beyond my
knowledge though.
They definitely are NOT on my wish list.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010206 104802 msg02927.tex]

712
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Speed Slope Windshield

Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:35:21

I have never replaced a windshield myself but I have done a lot of work behind the
panel. I would go to a speed slope windshield just for the convenience of working behind
the panel. All of the ones that I have worked on have gone to the new style panel with
the speed slope.
There was a gentleman named Vance Breese who did some speed cleanups on an E35 back
when it was new. One of the things he experimented with was a steeper sloped windshield
much like the current Beech one. He said it was the biggest single improvement that he
made.
Incidentally, Mr Breese was not a ”fly by night” tinkerer. He was a retired aeronautical
engineer who had worked for many of the major aircraft manufacturers before and during
World War II. He was instrumental in the design of the ”Fleet ” and other aircraft of
the day.
The project on the Bonanza was just an interesting personal challenge and not meant
for any kits or anything other than his own enjoyment.
He also was writing in the fifties that the tail was the reason they were shedding wings
and that the wing was strong enough already.
To bad they didn’t listen to that ”Old Retired Has Been”.
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970925 113521 msg01840.tex]

713
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Static Wicks and Flap Position Decals

Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:04:47

Good Morning John,

In a message dated 1/22/99 9:25:12 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

Any thoughts on the wicks protecting the radios from a direct lightening
strike?

Strictly anecdotal, but every airplane in which I have experienced a static discharge has
been equipped with static wicks. Sometimes some of the radios have been damaged, but
in most cases they have not.
I don’t want them on my airplane for several reasons but if you decide they will help,
they will probably make Your House Safe From Tigers.
My reading on the subject during the time I was deciding convinced me that the only
static wicks that do any good at all, are those which have the relatively stiff plastic
exterior on which sharp needles a half inch long are applied ninety degrees to the axis
of the wick. You will note that those are the type currently used on most aircarrier and
more sophisticated corporate aircraft.
Those are so dangerous to personnel that they are generally made easily removable and
are unscrewed and removed by the crew when the airplane is to be in a position where
some person may come in close proximity to the static wicks. The people that sell those
fancy wicks did an excellent job of convincing me that the old fashioned rope type static
wicks are next to useless. Not completely useless, but enough so that I don’t want them
messing up my airplane.
As I have mentioned before, we do not steer away from flight in cloud and fly a fair
amount in precipitation. I have no static wicks on my airplane and have never noted
any difficulty with any static build up problems. My airplane is very well bonded and I
do have the Nav blades on the tail. All of my antennas are located as far as I could get
them from the windshield which I am told is a major generator of static interference on
the Bonanza.
I have noted that many Bonanzas and other general aviation aircraft often have broken
or about to break bonding straps on their control surfaces. Antennas are often not
properly grounded and shielding is improperly placed or not grounded, I would think
attention to those details might be in order and it will create no drag and tear no clothes!
You earlier mentioned where one might recommend the flap decal being placed. Since
it was on the original airplane I guess it is a piece of required equipment and probably
should be applied.
I would suggest that it be placed in the vicinity of the outboard flap track.

714
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Personally, I know of no use for that indication.

This is what I recommend. If you are on the ground and wish to set the flaps at twenty
degrees of deflection for takeoff, roll in full right aileron and extend the flaps until the
flap is lined up with the left aileron. If you ailerons are properly rigged, that will be
twenty degrees.
While the flaps are extending, note that there are two large washers, one on either side
of the flap track that have a small screw right in the middle. If you want ten degrees
of flap, stop the flap extension when that screw is lined up with the trailing edge. That
works at least as well as lining up the little decal marks!
For inflight use, I don’t think you have any intermediate setting that is allowed to be
extended any higher than the flap extend limit speed. That being the case what do you
care as to how much flap is deployed? It is unlikely that you will slow to a speed that
is below the flaps up stall speed until landing is imminent. By then I would expect to
have full flap anyway (controversial I know)!
I suggest extending the flaps in flight by feel. If you are extending them because you
want a little drag, just put them out till it feels like you have the drag you want. If the
amount feels like too much, bring them up a little!
You’ll be amazed at how soon you are able to get just the amount desired without any
indicator at all.
I find that I very rarely extend any flap at all until I am ready to set up my final approach
descent and at that time I take full flaps.
I am not all that familiar with the speeds applicable to the various models but I do
remember that on the straight 35s, the landing gear and flap limits were both 100 mph.
Once the landing gear was extended and the inboard doors closed, you could take it on
up to 130 mph. If drag is needed, the gear would seem to be the logical choice and there
would be no issue of reduced gust protection.
Are there any Bonanzas on which there is a flap speed that allows extension at a higher
speed than the gear? I don’t remember any, but I am sure someone will let us know if
there is!
Sometimes when I am flying at relatively low airspeeds, such as trying to stay below
ninety knots for a category A maneuvering approach restriction, I find it helpful to
extend some flap so as to get the nose lower for better visibility. Once again I do it by
feel.
Works for me!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990122 120447 msg00986.tex]

715
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Strobe
Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:30:03

In a message dated 8/23/00 6:57:35 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I may change out both my bottom and top beacons. The bulbs have a
short life and cost almost 24.00 each!. What is the best replacement for
the bottom and rudder top beacon? Thanks.

Good Morning All,

This has been discussed on the forum before, but I would like to add a comment.
I like to see a rotating beacon or other flashing incandescent light on the top of the
fuselage of a small aircraft so that it provides a good conspicuity warning to aircraft
that might be taxiing behind that aircraft.
From experience, I know that small aircraft with nothing but running lights showing are
hard to spot, especially from the rear. That little white tail light just doesn’t attract the
eye when mixed up with all of the other lights that are shining around a busy airport.
The view from anything from a DC-3 to a 747 is such that the line of sight is right over
the top of a Bonanza or similar sized aircraft.
Now we all know that the flash intensity and duration of a strobe is such that no night
blindness is caused by the flash even when the observer is very close by, yet, it is common
for crews taxiing behind an aircraft equipped with strobes to ask that the strobes be
turned off.
Some operators make it a practice to only turn the strobes on when cleared into position,
others don’t turn them on until they are cleared for takeoff.
No one seems to complain about being blinded by a rotating beacon and yet it does an
excellent job of letting a big iron driver know that there is something on the taxiway
ahead.
I want a rotating beacon, a set of alternating flashing red lights or something equally as
eye-catching shining aft on my airplane!
The strobes will do the job, but you are liable to bitched at by some aviators who are
lacking in knowledge as to the effect of the strobe on their visual acuity.
Just my two cents worth!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000823 123003 msg12471.tex]

716
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.9. EQUIP-MISC

Strobes
Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:16:24

In a message dated 12/13/00 8:35:44 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I don’t believe I have the ”upper and lower sets of mounting holes” to
which you refer. I could easily be wrong on that. But if that’s the case,
I’ll probably be able to put it pretty much anywhere that looks reasonable,
and will then have the joy of getting it approved sometime between now
and the end of the next decade...

Good Morning Eric,

Since the strobes always were, and I think still are, an option, I don’t believe there has
ever been a mounting plate or hole installed unless a beacon or strobe was ordered as an
option. The factory has mounted upper and lower strobes in various positions depending
on the interior configuration. They generally affix a nice doubler that ties in with the
associated structure. It is generally off center to the right side of the airframe for the
upper beacon or strobe. That was done to avoid cutting the main stringer which runs
along the top center of the fuselage.
There were several early field installations where the beacon was mounted on the center
line and most of the installations did not meet the CAM 18 requirements. The FAA
sent out guidance for DAMIs to be on the lookout for such discrepancies.
The lower beacon is generally factory mounted off center to the left in a position where
it will not interfere with the cables in the belly.
In general, a doubler somehow integrated to the stringers is installed. It should either
be in compliance with current FARs or shown to be adequate by another acceptable
means. Check with your IA. It really isn’t an unreasonable requirement.
Someday, if I ever find the time, I intend to clean off the top of my airplane, Mike Smith
style.
I plan on installing a couple of flush logo style lights which will face aft and flash
alternately. That is to warn large aircraft taxiing behind me that I am in their way!
’Nough of that.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001213 101624 msg17705.tex]

717
4.9. EQUIP-MISC CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

V-Tail AD
Thu, 17 Dec 1998 18:05:27

In a message dated 12/17/98 3:34:21 PM Central Standard Time,

George Vasick wrote:

Hi Ron, Hi Scott,
Thanks for your replys on the new V-tail AD. Of course, now I am more
confused than I thought I was. One article I read definitely left me with
the impression that Beech had gone to thicker rudervator skins, although
still magnesium, and that most, if not all, of the tail vibration incidents
were in aircraft with the thicker tail skins. I wanted to reread the article
last night but naturally I couldn’t find it. I think it was an email that I
must have deleted.

Good Evening George,

I too have heard of the thicker skin theory. The story I got was that the skins are
nominally .020 inch thick. The manufacturing tolerance is + or - .003, supposedly the
ones on the early airplanes tended to run on the thin side of the limit where the newer
ones are closer to full or maybe a little more in thickness.
I have discussed this with Ron Vickrey and he doesn’t feel the differences are all that
great, but if they were, that could easily add up to a fifteen or twenty percent difference
in the weight of the skins even without the weight of the paint and aluminum parts now
used.
The dynamics of flutter and vibration are rather complex and not easy to estimate or
solve by eyeball engineering. It is going to take some testing or maybe the answer is to
build a surface that has no more weight than the originals had.
In the ”olden days”, the materials were often changed just to provide some differences
to test. Fabric covered surfaces often solved early flutter and vibration problems. If
nothing else, it changed the coupling relationship of the materials.
I would love to try fabric covered surfaces on the affected airplanes but I know that the
FEDs would never buy it and neither would most of the owners!
It would seem most likely that the answer will be in some method of returning the
surfaces to something closer to the original weights, fits and structural strengths.
There have been onerous ADs in the past and a method of solving the problem has
always been found. I’m confident this one will be no different.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19981217 180527 msg07642.tex]

718
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.10. EQUIP-PROP

4.10 EQUIP-PROP

719
4.10. EQUIP-PROP CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Difference Between 406 and 409 Prop

Wed, 4 Oct 2000 23:32:47

In a message dated 10/4/00 10:11:38 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

The problem is the engine installation. As I understand it, the only differ-
ence with the 409 is an offset in the hub that is there to reduce vibration
with the 550.

Hmmmm!
The folks at McCauley assured me that the only difference between the two was the
position of the holes in the flange. The 406 is indexed at a slightly different angle to
the TDC position. As you say, that is supposed to match it better to the vibration
characteristics of the 550. Supposedly, all of the components are identical, even the
flange before it is drilled.
If true, that could not possibly affect the fit on the engine.
I am eager to hear what George has to say!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001004 233247 msg14467.tex]

720
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.10. EQUIP-PROP

Four Blade Prop

Fri, 13 Mar 1998 09:47:30

Good Morning Frank Kelly,

In a message dated 98-03-13 09:01:09 EST, you write:

Bob, what is the advantage of the four blade prop?

It is MUCH quieter for the neighbors, a little quieter in the airplane and has better
ground clearance. It is as quiet as a 170 on takeoff or a flyby. It just whooshes past.
The initial take off and climb performance with the 550 and the 4-blade are not as good
as the 520 and the 2-blade provided. I can’t tell any significant difference in the cruise
performance. The airplane produces about the same true airspeeds as before using the
same leaning procedures and fuel flows at the same altitudes. It does produce slightly
more horsepower at any equivalent altitude and therefore I am able to realize slightly
higher cruise speeds and my 10 to 12 thousand foot longrange cruise performance seems
slightly improved. I have only 327 hours on the installation so far and don’t really have
a complete handle on the performance.
I removed a strong running 951 hour 520 engine when I put in the 550 so there wasn’t
as much increase in available power as there would have been with a run out engine and
I also feel that the engine I have is probably at it’s peak power output now. I do feel
performance has improved slightly as the engine has broken in.
If there were a 2-blade approved on the 550, that is what I would try next. Unfortunately
there is not much demand and no one wants to spend the money for an approval.
It appears that the old adage, ”Two for go and three for show” should include the four
blade and still applies where noise is not a problem.
I am sure this is more than you ever wanted to know!!!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980313 094730 msg01228.tex]

721
4.10. EQUIP-PROP CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Four Blade Prop

Fri, 13 Mar 1998 12:19:59

Hi George,
In a message dated 98-03-13 11:57:23 EST, you write:

I had heard that the 4 blade Hartzell props were heavy, but I had no idea
they were THAT heavy.

The blades are tiny but the hub looks like something they must have designed for
a thousand horsepower turbo prop. It is big! The propeller is, over all, rather an
abomination. Not one of my smarter moves.
Bob
PS It is, however, the best conversation starter that I have ever had!!
[ARTICLES/19980313 121959 msg01234.tex]

722
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.10. EQUIP-PROP

Four Blade Prop

Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:53:52

Good Morning Past Pres Charlie,

In a message dated 98-07-22 10:52:27 EDT, you write:

While we’re on the subject, does anyone out there have any experience with
the 4 bladed props that some Bonanza’s are now being retrofitted with.

Yes. I had the Colemill conversion installed on my airplane in July 1996 and now have
flown it a little over 450 hours.

Are they heaver than the 3 bladed prop?

Again, yes. The weight change from the two blade was just over forty pounds, the
IO550B with the newer lighter weight accessories came in a little lighter than the 520
BA it replaced so the net gain was some 38.26 pounds, all in the prop.

Are they quieter?

Yes, amazingly so. The sound is a lot different, but the noise footprint is much closer
to a 172 than a normal Bonanza. I don’t notice a lot of change in the cockpit, but my
neighbors all comment on how quiet my airplane is on departure.

How much cg change with this config?

Actual Empty Weight (not ”Basic”) before conversion was 2219.31, CG 80.4 After con-
version, 2257.57 and CG at 79.06

Just curious. Charlie

Curiosity was the primary reason I went to the four blade. Would I do it again? No.
The pluses are:
It is without doubt the greatest conversation piece I have ever owned! Everybody stops
and asks about it.
It is almost unbelievably quiet to the folks outside the airplane. Very nice for my
neighbors.
The CG change is nice, but it is at the loss of available payload.
Propellor clearance is great, relatively little stone and nick damage.
The minuses:
There is a tremendous loss in takeoff and climb performance. Colemill had warned me
that it wouldn’t accelerate as well below 80 knots, but they said it would do as well as
a three blade from 80 on (No mention made of comparison to a two blade.)

723
4.10. EQUIP-PROP CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

The performance loss was immediately noticable. The airplane just does not accelerate
well and I don’t feel it climbs anywhere near as well as it did with the 520 and the 2
blade. These are personal subjective evaluations, not scientifically measured, but I have
run some comparisons against a friends V35B at equivalent weights both before and
after the conversion. His airplane out performed mine before I added the conversion and
he beats me even more now! The only difference is in flat out high speed. Now, after
running in level flight for twenty or thirty miles I can gain about a quarter mile on him
whereas with the 520 he would have been a mile or so ahead. I don’t know if that is due
to the higher power of my 550B or the smaller diameter prop.
Four blades are even more in the way when working on the airplane than are three
blades. If there was a two blade prop approved on the engine that is what I would try
next.
I have inquired to both current propeller manufacturers about getting a two blade and
both told me that I am the only person who has ever asked so they figure the market is
just not there. The cost of a one time approval appears to be beyond what I can afford.
Such is life! I don’t consider it one of my worst mistakes but it was one of the more
costly in dollars!
Thanks for asking, as I said before; It is a great conversation piece!
Happy Skies.
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980722 115352 msg03833.tex]

724
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.10. EQUIP-PROP

Four Bladed Prop

Wed, 26 Jan 2000 11:16:39

In a message dated 1/26/00 7:50:41 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

If one has a four blade with Q-tips would it still be necessary to pull the
prop back to 2500? Isn’t the noise factor the reason we pull the prop back?

Good Morning John O,

The three blade is quieter than the two blade and the four blade is quieter than the
three blade. But! The four blade is quieter at 2500 than it is at 2700. While I never did
any scientific evaluations, it also seemed to me that I lost little if any performance by
pulling back to 2500. it almost seemed as if the prop was losing efficiency at the higher
RPM. It might have been just the change in sound, but it seemed nicer at 2500.
In any case, for my operation, the performance loss on takeoff and climb from the four
blade was just too much to give up for a quieter operation.
The three blade at 2500 RPM seems to be a decent compromise between performance
and noise.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000126 111639 msg01758.tex]

725
4.10. EQUIP-PROP CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

IO-550 Conversion and 3 Bladed Prop

Sat, 27 Jan 2001 11:53:02

In a message dated 1/27/01 10:21:36 AM Central Standard Time, 72227.2675@com-

puserve.com writes:

I am replacing my McCauley prop on a 67 V35 with an IO-550 and recall

George mentioning what the most efficient prop for speed and climb is,
unfortunately I don’t recall the specifics. If any of you have the thread or
if George can chime in it will be most appreciated.
Dave Burkart N3770Q

Good Morning Dave,

About a year ago, George recommended the Black Mac 409 by McCauley. I know that
BDS is currently recommending one of the Hartzell Top Props.
George may have changed his mind or found something better, but I haven’t heard about
it if he has.
The 409 is lighter than the Hartzell.
The McCauley 409 and 406 are identical in all respects except that the 409 was developed
to specifically match the vibration characteristics of the 550 and is only approved on
that engine. The holes for the attaching bolts or studs are drilled with a slightly different
orientation on the 550, supposedly to better coordinate with the 550 peak combustion
pressure event. The 406 can be used on either the 520 or the 550.
The performance should be the same with either a 406 or 409. The 409 might be
smoother.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010127 115302 msg01962.tex]

726
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.10. EQUIP-PROP

IO-550 Conversion and Three Bladed Prop

Mon, 7 Aug 2000 16:54:03

In a message dated 8/7/00 2:55:17 PM Central Daylight Time, Ernie [email protected]

writes:

I figure we probably will lose about 50# due to the 3 blade prop and IO-550
engine.

Hi Ernie,
I just checked the TCDS and there is a 2 blade approved for the model 36 which weighs
73 pounds. It is the 278-100-7 hub with 278-209-84 blades.
The 409 weighs 63 pounds. Several of the other two blades come in around 66 to 68
pounds. Unless you have an unusually light two blade, which I didn’t notice on the list,
you should have little or no weight change going to the IO550 with a 406 or 409 prop.
There are some versions of the 550 which weigh a little more than some versions of the
520, but by choosing a light weight starter and alternator, you could end up with the
big engine, three blade prop and save as much as twenty pounds!
It’s amazing what you can do if you try!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000807 165403 msg11857.tex]

727
4.10. EQUIP-PROP CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

IO-550 Conversion and Three Bladed Prop

Tue, 15 Aug 2000 17:01:07

In a message dated 8/14/00 9:59:11 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob: I do not know what a 406 is. The only 3 blader certified for my K with
the 520 conversion from BDS at the time that did not require a significant
nose bowl modification was the top prop. All McCauley props required
significant nose bowl mod. By the way, the 520 plus the top prop plus
accessories together only weighed .5 pounds more then the 470-C/beech
278/accessories that came out. For CG reasons, I would not wish to loose
much weight up front. Steve

Good Afternoon Steve,

The 406 and the 409 are both McCauley Black Mac props.
I guess I did not realize just how long ago you converted to the 520! The spinners
used on the 406 were a little too long to fit on your airplane without a small nose bowl
modification, but BDS has had one designed that does fit and that has been available
for some time now.
As I understand the situation, the 406 and the 409 are functionally identical. The
only difference is the orientation of the holes that attach the prop to the crankshaft.
McCauley engineers claim that they ran a vibration analysis that led them to believe
that a slight reorientation of the prop on the 550 would have some beneficial result.
Whether it did or not is open to discussion. It is possible that there might be some
increase in smoothness with a 409 over a 406, but not all experts agree. Both are
excellent propellors and the 406 has greater flexibility since it is approved on both the
550 and the 520. I don’t know if it can be used on the 470 or not. I can’t find it in the
TCDS listings, but someone may have an STC for it.
I know reducing the weight up front will add to the CG problem, but it seems a shame to
carry any weight you don’t need! There must be something you could add that actually
serves a need other than to just add weight!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000815 170107 msg12184.tex]

728
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.10. EQUIP-PROP

IO-550 Conversion and Two Bladed Prop

Thu, 28 Oct 1999 13:45:21

In a message dated 10/28/99 12:28:53 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

I’ve been told you can’t put a two blade on the 550 on a Bonanza. Is this
2 blade combination something new?? Thanks for any help, John

Good Afternoon John,

Good Point! I noticed that also. As of Oshkosh this year, both Hartzell and McCauley
told me that no two blades were approved on the 550. The version used on the Mooney
is a different one than we use, but perhaps there is hope!
The comment was made by both manufacturers that they are getting a lot of interest in
the two blade prop now that a lot of the bush type airplanes are being equipped with
550s. The bush folks like two blades because they can be carried in most any small
plane. The three and four blades are a pain to ship in any manner, let alone in a small
aircraft!
You might note that Piper stuck with the two blade for the Malibu/Mirage until a couple
of years ago. They finally had so many folks clamoring for a three blade that one was
finally approved. I asked one of the Piper folks about it and he said it performed almost
as well as the two blade and since so many folks liked the look of the three blade, they
finally went to the trouble to get it approved. I would imagine the same thing would
be true of the Mooney. The two blade likely gives the best overall performance, but I
imagine the macho types will insist on multiple bladed propellers!
I would like to try a two blade on my 550B. If you make contact with anyone at McCauley
or Hartzell, let us all know what they say!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991028 134521 msg09776.tex]

729
4.10. EQUIP-PROP CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

IO-550 Conversion and Two Bladed Prop

Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:13:11

In a message dated 2/29/00 12:41:36 AM Central Standard Time, Ernie [email protected]

writes:

Why would the cost of certifying be so high, the IO-550 is certified for the
airframe isn’t it? They are covered in the same certificate as the be-35 etc

Good Morning Ernie,

I don’t have an answer to your question, but when I asked the folks at Hartzell what
it would cost to get a two blade prop approved on my 550, I was told that it would
be an absolute minimum of $100,000. I was told that they felt that the vibration
characteristics of the engine are almost identical to the 520 and that there probably
would be no difficulties with the approval. If that turned out to be the case and the
entire approval program went forth with absolutely no adjustment or changes being
necessary, the 100 grand would do the job, but if any, even very minor, changes needed
to be made, the cost would escalate rapidly.
I am not knocking the FEDs, they are just following the procedures established. The
problem is with the system. We insist that we be protected at every turn and that we
be assured that everything we buy will be the safest it is humanly possible to make, yet
we gripe about the cost of doing the approval process.
We have met the enemy and it is us!
Nothing is easy!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000229 101311 msg03902.tex]

730
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.10. EQUIP-PROP

IO-550 and Two Bladed Prop

Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:55:01

In a message dated 6/2/00 8:42:05 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Mooney has a 2 blade on the revised Ovation which uses the IO-550 derated
to 280 HP. Gained several knots over the prior 3 blade. Academic since the
prop is unlikely to be STC’ed for the Bonanza, but you never know. Point
is, there was a speed gain. - Bob

Good Evening Bob,

That engine is a 550-G which is quite a bit different from the IO-550-B which fits in the
Bonanza. It has an overhead intake and a different valve arrangement on the cylinders.
However, both Hartzell and McCauley have told me that they don’t think it would be
difficult to get a two blade approved on the 550-B. All it would take is someone to
finance the tests. They estimated that it would cost about one hundred thousand to
make the approval tests, provided everything checked out OK. If any changes had to be
made, it would cost another hundred grand for the further tests. And so forth until it
was accepted. So far, the only group that is pressing for the two blade approval is the
bush pilot community. It is a bear to transport a three bladed prop by small aircraft.
Duck soup for a two blade. I sure would like to give one a try!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000602 235501 msg09077.tex]

731
4.10. EQUIP-PROP CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

McCauley 409 and 409 Three Bladed Prop

Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:24:06

In a message dated 11/3/99 3:21:35 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

What’s the difference between a [McCauley] 406 and a 409?? Bob Briggs

Good Afternoon Bob,

They are both Black Mac three blade props. All of the components of both are identical
and interchangeable with the exception of the hub itself. Even that is of an identical
construction except for the bolt hole indexing in relation to the blades. It mounts at a
slightly different angle in relation to the power pulses.
McCauley spent the time and effort to match the 409 more closely to the vibration
characteristics of the 550. It is possible that the 409 might be a little smoother than the
406 when installed. The 409 is only approved on the 550 whereas the 406 is approved
on either engine.
There should be absolutely no difference in performance.
Hope that helps.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991103 172406 msg10101.tex]

732
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.10. EQUIP-PROP

Prop De-ice/Anti-ice
Thu, 18 Dec 1997 11:46:10

Good Morning All,

Just a comment on the propellor deice problem.
I think all of us would prefer that our airplanes be able to be flown in all conditions of
weather and ice is one of those conditions. Unfortunately most of us have to evaluate
the cost-benefit relationship of any funds we spend on our machines. Ice costs a lot of
money to operate in, and we don’t all need to fly that bad.
Having the propellors stay clear of ice is helpful and that can be done at a very reasonable
cost.
There are various propellor coatings available which are quite effective in preventing ice
build up on propellors when used properly.
In the days of propellor driven airliners, if a prop de-icer or anti-ice system was inoper-
ative, we could operate in icing conditions by coating the rubber boot on the prop with
Icex (Goodrich brand name). My recollection is that one application was approved for
twentyfour hours of operation including up to eight hours in precipitation.
The mechanics generally coated the entire blade even though it was not required. It
worked very well and I used Icex on my Bonanza until Glidden came out with Glidair
ice repellent designed for use on aluminum propellors.
That product went off the market fifteen or twenty years ago, but Sportys sells something
which appears to be about the same stuff under the name of ICG.
ICG does not spell out specific lengths of time for it’s effectiveness as did Glidair but it
seems to be at least as effective.
You can buy an awful lot of ICG for the price of propellor deicers. If you remember to
put it on the prop, It won’t fail like an electric system can or run out of fluid as slinger
systems may. The weight is negligible. I carry one can with me and can tell when it is
getting low by shaking. I put it on the prop every time there is any possibility I will be
in cloud in the winter time and use about one can per year. It seems to do every bit as
well as electric or fluid anti-ice/de-ice propellor systems.
I do think it helps if the leading edges are kept smooth and nicks properly filed out, but
that should be done anyway.
I certainly don’t want to encourage anyone to fly into any weather with deiced props
that they wouldn’t fly into otherwise, but if you goof, it is nice to have clean props!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried

733
4.10. EQUIP-PROP CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

P.S. I use it on my snow blower too and it helps keep the vanes and chute from clogging!!
[ARTICLES/19971218 114610 msg02804.tex]

734
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.10. EQUIP-PROP

Prop Deice
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:37:01

In a message dated 7/22/99 7:19:34 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Last time I checked (for a customer while I was with FliteCraft Turbo),
the kit for the electrothermal propeller deicing system cost about $10,000
through Raytheon.

Good Morning Steve and Tom,

A can of ice repellent spray works just as well. In addition it weighs and costs a lot less.
There is also no chance of failure provided you remember to put it on!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990722 093701 msg06316.tex]

735
4.10. EQUIP-PROP CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Three Blade Prop

Tue, 28 Oct 1997 08:59:44

Good Morning John,

In a message dated 97-10-28 02:21:39 EST, you write:

Hi Bob, Do you need to upgrade to a tree blade prop to add the tip tanks....

The three blade prop is not required with the tip tanks. In some cases there will be
a slight vibration or ”beat” with the tanks installed on a ”three blade” airplane. This
doesn’t seem to happen with the two blades.
I have never experienced that problem but am told it is easily remedied but I am not
sure precisely how it is done. I believe it is through further balancing of the ailerons.
Incidentally you mention an ”upgrade to a three blade prop”, I don’t think that is
necessarily an upgrade!
The three blades are generally a shorter diameter and that helps minimize prop dam-
age. They also have a different sound which some prefer and are often perceived to be
smoother (in spite of the problem with the tip tanks). There is some increase in weight
providing an improvement in our lousy CG situation but that hurts the useful load.
I think that saying that a two blade is always better than a three blade (or vice/versa)
is like saying that a high wing is always better than a low wing. Many other factors
are involved. I feel that the two blades are best for T/O and climb provided that the
diameters are at the maximum allowed and that the blades have equal efficiencies.
Blade design, like aircraft design seems to be more art than science and the proof is in
the testing. Some of the three blades do get out better than some of the two blades
but you will notice that Jim Huff of Denton Texas has a two blade on his Duke engined
Bonanza which he uses primarily for racing. It gets out and climbs like a scared rabbit.
My current propeller is a four blade Hartzell. It is unbelievably quiet for the neighbors
but the T/O and climb both suffer greatly. If there was a two blade prop available
for the 550 that is what I would try next. (I’m working on it but have not yet been
successful).
It has been said ”Three are for show and two is for go!” I really think that individual
testing is neccessary and it depends on whether top speed or T/O and climb are more
important to you.
Well, you asked about tip tanks and here I am with a dissertation on propellers! Some
of us old folks do ramble.
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19971028 085944 msg02229.tex]

736
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.10. EQUIP-PROP

Three vs. Four Bladed Prop

Wed, 26 Jan 2000 18:35:29

In a message dated 1/26/00 4:26:59 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Good input Bob. I read somewhere that at cruise the 4 blade added 10kts
to the cruise speed. I’m willing to give up some early flight performance if
I can be a good neighbor.

Good Evening John,

I don’t know what it will do for your S model, but on my V35B the three blade is
providing at least as fast a cruise as did the four blade. The airplane is a little faster
now than it was before, but that might be because it is well broken in.
I gained about ten knots in top speed with the IO-550 with both the four blade and the
three blade. I wonder if that was what they were referring to?
There definitely was no speed advantage to the four blade on my airplane. If anything,
it was a little slower. There were several advantages to the four blade, however. It is
quite a bit quieter for the neighbors. The added 38 pounds helps the CG, but at the
expense of thirty-eight pounds of useful load! It was the greatest conversation piece I
ever had on the airplane. It is currently serving as a conversation piece hanging on my
hangar wall!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000126 183529 msg01789.tex]

737
4.10. EQUIP-PROP CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Three vs. Two Blade Prop

Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:55:33

Good Morning All,

In a message dated 98-07-22 10:00:39 EDT, you write:

Consider the impact of a 3-blade on CG. When the old 3-blade Hartzell was
installed on our S, the 27 lbs. of additional weight moved the CG almost
a full inch forward.
Also, three blades are supposed to be a bit quieter since the blades are
shorter.

If you think three blades help, why not go to four? My four blade Hartzell took almost
seven gallons of gas off my useful load but it did move the CG far enough forward such
that I am now right at the forward CG limit when I have full tanks and fly it solo. (Of
course I also now have over thirty minutes less range at an equivalent payload!)
The discussion on two blade verses three blade is somewhat analagous to the argu-
ment between high wing and low wing. There are fast, excellent performing high wing
airplanes and there are fast excellent performing low wings.
In the same way, there are major differences in performance betwen various 2 blade
props and the same holds true amongst the various three blades.
So called ”common knowledge” has it that, all other things being equal, the propellor
that has the greatest diameter and therefore the greatest disc area will have the best
takeoff and climb performance provided it is operated at an RPM that does not allow
it to get to close to the speed of sound.
The fastest in level flight will be the one with the smallest disc diameter provided that
it is still able to operate at a relatively efficient angle of attack and transfer the required
amount of power.
Note that we haven’t even mentioned the number of blades! The primary reason to add
more blades is to provide the ability to absorb more power in the disc area available. If
a two blade will do the job in the area chosen, that should be the most efficient. Thus
the old admonition; Three for show and two for go!
I have a close friend who flies an amphibious 185. He has always tried to have the
longest bladed 2 blade prop that was approved on his airplane. His primary interest is
in getting it off the water and cruise performance is relatively unimportant. Such was
the accepted wisdom among the seaplane drivers.
A few years ago he had occasion to fly an airplane with a shorter three blade prop and
it performed better than his! After installing the same type prop on his airplane, he felt
his take off, climb and cruise all improved. He also found less water damage occurred.
So what am I trying to say?

738
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.10. EQUIP-PROP

There just doesn’t seem to be any fixed answer. The aircraft manufacturers have a lot
more knowledge available to them than any of we amateurs have accrued. they still try
a bunch of different props and then choose the one that has the best performance for
the regime they are trying to emphasize or the best compromise solution.
A whole lot of people like the looks of a three blade prop so most manufacturers will
offer one provided that the performance is at least adequate if not equal to the two
blade.
Piper has tried everything under the sun on the Malibu/Mirage line and a relatively
short two blade has always come up the winner. They were under such pressure from
owners to get a more macho looking unit on the nose that this year they have finally
come up with an acceptable three blade which they offer as an option.
Piper now claims you can have both the GO and the SHOW with their latest three
blade prop!
Incidentally, there are currently no two blade props approved on the IO550B. If that is
in your future, it should be a consideration.
Not much help was I?
You just have to try it!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980722 105533 msg03830.tex]

739
4.10. EQUIP-PROP CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Three vs. Two Blade Prop

Mon, 9 Nov 1998 00:29:39

Good Evening Marc,

In a message dated 11/6/98 9:55:54 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any good data from Mr. Finnigan
to support his feeling that the three-blade was faster. Looking at the ASI
alone isn’t enough.

I think it is reasonable to consider the three blade/two blade discussion in the same way
one would the high wing/low wing controversy. There is a lot more to propeller design
than the number of blades.
Like wings, every now and then a designer gets lucky and a certain combination works
even better than planned. I am sure there are three blade props approved for the
Bonanza that will out perform two blades and vice versa.
The manufacturers tend to test a broad spectrum of propellers for each model before
choosing the one to be used. I understand that Piper had tried a number of three and
four blade models on the Malibu over the years but the old two blade always came out
with the best numbers.
This past year they finally found a three blade which will perform as well (or at least
close enough) as the two blade and are now offering it on the Malibu Mirage.
The public like the looks of a multiple blade prop and if there is not too great a perfor-
mance penalty, they will sell.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981109 002939 msg06789.tex]

740
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.10. EQUIP-PROP

Three vs. Two Blade Prop

Mon, 9 Nov 1998 17:30:36

Good Evening Scott,

In a message dated 11/9/98 3:18:22 PM Central Standard Time, sderrick@yahoo- eng.com
writes:

I have always heard that a big single blade was the most efficient and we
don’t use them because it would hit the ground during taxi. Of course
efficiency and performance don’t always equal each other.

That has always been the conventional wisdom and if you will remember, the speed
demons of the control line set used single blade propellers. There was also a single blade
propeller approved for the J-3/T-Craft set in the thirties but it was not very successful.
The static balance was OK but they were never able to solve the dynamic problems.
A single blade does not, however, solve any of the supersonic tip problems so the length
of the blade would still be a function of the RPM and it could be no longer than a two
blade with the same restriction.
The maximum practical diameter of the tip path for 2700 RPM is about 84 inches.
The very early Bonanza was designed for a 96 inch propeller which was to swing at a
maximum of 2050 RPM. With a flat nose strut and a flat nose tire, I believe it had
about four inches of ground clearance. I don’t think any were delivered with that long
a prop, but I’m not sure.
Propellor design is closer to an art than a science!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19981109 173036 msg06808.tex]

741
4.10. EQUIP-PROP CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Three vs. Two Blade Prop

Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:51:39

In a message dated 10/29/99 5:47:12 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

A few questions regarding props.

WARNING: These questions will be regarded by many as stupid. Tough.
;-)

Good Evening Eric,

As our third grade teacher said, there are no dumb questions, however I can likely
provide some dumb answers!

1. M-35, IO-470CcN ... is there a 3-bladed prop that’s approved as is, or

is an STC required?

You could look it up in the aircraft spec sheets, or I could if I wanted to spend the time,
but I am reasonably certain that none are currently listed.
There are a number of after market approvals available via the STC route. It would
be unlikely that you would need a local approval, just buy the right to use the already
approved STC and install and operate the prop in accordance with that approval.
You could call Hartzell and/or McCauley directly, but I would suggest contacting BDS.
Scott should have all of the information you need.

2. If an STC is required, or if a 337 is executed, can I then go back to the

2-blade prop whenever I want to? I can visualize instances where I’d want
a 2-blade prop for long trips (to get the extra cruise speed) but use the
3-blade prop for everything else (for better climb, shorter takeoff roll, and
most importantly, less noise).

Once the prop is installed it would be best to submit another 337 if a two blade were
put back on.
I have heard the argument made that one 337 could be submitted which listed both
propellers and listed all of the data pertinent to both. That would be handled in much
the same manner as is the installation of skies or floats. If both are listed and approved,
the change can be made by any authorized entity and the only paperwork required is a
log book entry. I have never known anyone who has tried it for a prop.
Oh, one more thing. Why do you feel that the two blade would be faster and the three
blade get off and climb better? The number of blades has very little to do with either
function. All other factors being equal, the propellor with the greatest disc area should
provide the best takeoff and climb and the one with the least disc area should provide
the highest speed. The propellor with the fewest number of blades that are still able

742
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.10. EQUIP-PROP

to absorb the required power should be the most efficient at transferring that power
into acceleration, climb or speed. Saying that a two blade is faster than a three blade
is rather like saying that a high wing airplane is faster than a low wing airplane. It
depends on dozens of other factors much more than it does on the number of blades or
whether the aircraft is high wing or low wing.
Every aircraft manufacturer tries to choose the propeller that will give the optimum
compromise of performance for his airplane. They hire highly trained engineers who
consult with knowledgeable propellor engineers and then try lots of different combina-
tions before a propellor is chosen. I am sure some two blades are faster than some three
blades and I am sure the opposite is also true. It depends!!

3. Can the aircraft owner change the prop on his/her own airplane, or is
an A&P required?

There is considerable disagreement on what can or cannot be done by the owner/operator.

If you think you could support the argument that it was strictly preventive maintenance,
and both props were listed in the appropriate paperwork. It might fly!
I think most FAA inspectors would say the prop should be changed by an authorized
entity.

4. I would like to try to find a way to try out a 3-bladed prop on my

airplane for a day, and put the 2-blade prop back on if I don’t like the 3.
I’d quite happily pay a reasonable fee for this, but obviously I don’t want
to have to buy a prop in order to do this. Can anyone think of a way I can
rent one for a day to see if the performance/noise is acceptable? (Hey, I
SAID these were dumb questions, but there’s no telling what miracles can
happen if you don’t ask.) .

Once again, I would call someone like BDS and see if they have a used prop available.
If they do, you should be able to work out a deal to make the swap and try it out. A
couple of hours each way should handle the installation and the paperwork.
You might ask the same question of both Hartzell and McCauley.

5. Is there a legal way to put quieter mufflers on without sacrificing a

significant amount of power?

Once again, BDS has glass packed straight through mufflers approved for the Bonanza.
I don’t think they cause any measurable back pressure, but I imagine they cause a little
extra drag. I had a set on my airplane for about five hundred hours. I think they made
it a little quieter for my neighbors, but I never measured it with a sound meter. I did
not notice the increase in drag but they added a couple of pounds to the weight. I am
not sure if BDS is still producing them or not.

Before very much longer, I may find myself in an environment where noise
is a very sensitive issue, hence all these questions and the other questions

743
4.10. EQUIP-PROP CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

about taking off with reduced RPM, etc. Quieter mufflers, a 3-bladed prop,
cranked back to 2500 RPM ... why, it’d positively whisper. ;-)

I live on a private airstrip which is completely surrounded by city homes. We do attempt

to operate as quietly as possible, but we still have a complaint every now and then. Some
of my neighbors make their takeoffs at reduced RPM from the standstill.
I think it works better to use full power till I am off the ground with the gear and flaps
up, then reduce the RPM. I believe that puts me higher by the time I get to the noise
sensitive area at the end of the runway. I have the RPM down long before I get there.
Some of my neighbors like the other way best.
Hope that helps!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991029 235139 msg09865.tex]

744
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.10. EQUIP-PROP

Which Prop?
Sun, 22 Feb 1998 08:56:28

Good Morning Charles Freese,

You asked:

I was contemplating looking on purchasing a C Model Bonanza in the future

and was wondering exactly what you people feel would be a better prop
Hydro or Electric and why?

Lots of possibilities! I personally have always liked the Beech prop though I have been
told some of the parts are getting hard to find. It needs to be maintained and lubricated
properly, but of the airplanes I have owned and worked on, I always felt the performance
was better with the electric Beech unit.
I know Ray L. has said he liked the diaphragm actuated prop but that is my least favorite
of the bunch. It really doesn’t have enough pitch range to take full advantage of the
performance range available in the Bonanza. It worked fine in the Navions and other
slow airplanes but had some limiltations in the Beech. The newer Hartzell with the oil
transfer collar does have excellent performance and would probably deliver better takeoff
than even the Beech prop due to the legal allowance of flatter pitch thereby giving a
higher static RPM and better initial acceleration. I haven’t checked recently but am
told that the price of this prop has gone sky high.
If you are considering the electric prop remember that it is an inflight adjustable pro-
peller, not a constant speed unit. In order to have constant speed, an additional unit
must be installed and that is the automatic prop control. That was an aftermarket ad-
dition which was later added as a Beech option. A very high percentage of the current
Beech electric propeller equipped airplanes have the APC. There are at least two types
of APCs available. The early ones used a tube type amplifier and electric eye reading
a rotating cable driven mask to determine rpm and had some maintenance problems.
Most have been converted to a nice solid state unit which works very well.
The electric props are supposed to be set up with a little more pitch so as to be in
a condition where a failure of the APC on takeoff would not result in an overspeed
condition.
I don’t have current information on the limits but the basic rules forty years ago were
that without an APC unit installed the flat pitch stop was to be set so that with full
throttle at sea level etc. the RPM would not hit redline until 100 mph. With an APC
unit installed the flat pitch stop could be set so that redline RPM could be developed
around 80 mph.
A lot of people in those days would illegally set the stops so that redline rpm was attained
around 60 mph. That drastically improved the takeoff performance but the old APC
units couldn’t react fast enough to properly control the RPM so it was necessary to
operate the prop in the manual mode and that took a pretty tricky thumb on the switch

745
4.10. EQUIP-PROP CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

to keep things under control. Not difficult but it took some practice. I don’t know how
folks are handling it today.
Does that help?
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980222 085628 msg01085.tex]

746
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.10. EQUIP-PROP

Aeromatic Prop
Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:25:44

In a message dated 11/17/99 10:01:06 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

This may be a bit premature (or even wishful thinking), but there’s a fellow
out there that is attempting to bring back the aeromatic flottorp and beech
roby props. Word is that one of these may work with the splined E series
engines. Sure would breath a bit of fresh air (and relief) into all of we
unfortunates that own the Classics. http://www.aeromatic.com My fingers
are crossed!

Good Evening A J,
You definitely don’t want an Aeromatic! They were used on the very first Navions and
even on an airplane with as little speed range as the early Navion, they weren’t worth
a darn!
The Aeromatic had a place and for a few limited applications, it was great advancement.
The Beech Roby was, and is, a great propellor! It was designed by Beech to fit on
the splined shaft because there were no other propellors available that would allow the
Bonanza to meet it’s potential. it was designed as an electric unit because Beech was
used to doing things electrically. Since they were not propellor manufacturers, they tied
up with Roby to get it built.
The wood blades would be fine, but the metal blades are better! The big paddles
were/are slightly more efficient at very low power settings, but nowhere near as good
for takeoff, climb and high cruise. While it might be possible to get someone to build
the wood blades at a reasonable price, all of the rest of the components are the same as
the electric version and would be at least as expensive as those components are today! I
think the Beech electric prop is the best performing propellor available for the E series
engines, especially if they are still at the full 88 inch length, but the economics may
favor a more modern unit.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991118 002544 msg10719.tex]

747
4.11. EQUIP-REGS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

4.11 EQUIP-REGS

748
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.11. EQUIP-REGS

Field Approvals - Instructions for Continued Airworthiness

Sat, 17 Feb 2001 11:20:04

In a message dated 2/17/01 1:31:18 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

The FAA announced that 337 Field Approved Major Alterations issued
after Jan.1998 must address the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
(ICA) issue. Without ICA’s, a certificated person performing maintenance
or inspection on a F.A major alteration could be in violation of part 43,
section 43.13(a).

Good Morning Ken,

Our FSDO has been requiring the ICA since the 1998 date. The three field approvals
which I have obtained since then all were submitted with an ICA. It’s a piece of cake.
Just follow the guidelines and put something down for each of the 18 items, even if it is
just NA (Not Applicable).
The ICA is not a bad idea. All of the pertinent data goes in with the 337 and will be
available for the down line mechanic if the regular paper work is lost.
I don’t mind the requirement at all, and I HATE paperwork! I doubt if it adds thirty
minutes to the project.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010217 112004 msg04045.tex]

749
4.11. EQUIP-REGS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Unavailable STC’s
Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:01:17

In a message dated 2/16/01 6:45:26 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Shop around for a different FSDO person, if you can.

PMC

Good Evening Paul,

Good advice, but he might try the same office again. Seems to me that I heard some-
where that new guidance has recently been issued to the FSDOs concerning STCs which
are no longer available on the market.
I believe they now are encouraged to use the old documentation as adequate substanti-
ation for a local approval. The three light system is such an obvious improvement that
either using the old STC data or just listing it as an upgrade to newer standards should
fly in any office.
Worth a try!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010216 200117 msg04025.tex]

750
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

4.12 EQUIP-TIPTANKS

751
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Airspeed Loss
Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:56:05

Good Morning Eric Poole,

In a message dated 9/15/98 7:19:31 AM Central Daylight Time, you wrote:

I gained 200 lbs gross weight capability (seems to me the Osbornes would
have only gained me 150) and lost three or four knots in airspeed.

Interesting.
That is the largest loss in airspeed I have seen reported for the installation of standard
production tip tanks.
Was that check made at the same weight or was the difference at least partially the
result of higher gross weights?
The loss in airspeed with higher gross weights is quite apparent in all Bonanzas.
Wayne Collins told me that he has noted about a four mph drop in airspeed due to
his Dolly Parton tanks (100 gallons per side) when they are empty but no noticeable
difference between tanks on and tanks off when he uses his Brittains. He does remove
the tip tanks and put on factory standard tips when participating in air races such as
the Sun ’n Fun race for production aircraft.
If you will recall, Tom Turner reported a few months ago that he had observed a sub-
stantial loss in takeoff and climb performance following the installation of tip tanks.
Did you notice any change there?
Does anyone else have before and after data for any flight regime?
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980915 085605 msg05395.tex]

752
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

BDS and Delamination

Mon, 25 May 1998 14:13:57

Good Afternoon Eric and Paul,

In a message dated 98-05-25 13:33:39 EDT, you write:

I hear the BS tanks are fiberglass and that the delaminate and leak.

My BDS tanks were installed in January 1979, are of the older materials and are showing
no signs of delamination YET.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980525 141357 msg02813.tex]

753
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

BDS and Delamination

Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:43:42

In a message dated 12/21/99 8:49:00 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Didn’t work. So I am going to try and patch from outside. I only use mine
for long trips as I have the 20 gallon auxes too. A slosh has to be so thin
it will not bridge the pin holes. Maybe under pressure somehow.
If you find something let me know
Mike M

Good Evening Mike,

That was a valiant effort! Too bad it didn’t work. I have little to no knowledge of
fiberglass and it’s vagaries, but have been told by Allen Peterson (owner of BD’S) that
the material he was using on the early tanks has a rather limited life. I don’t remember
precisely how long he thought the tanks should last, but I think he said trouble would
not be unexpected in ten year old tanks if they lived outdoors.
Mine will be twenty-one years old in January and I imagine they will need to be replaced
soon! The airplane has lived in a hangar since new and I am sure that has helped.
About five years ago, when I discussed this with Allen, he told me that I should consider
replacing the old tanks with a set of his new ones. They have different glass and different
resins. He felt they should have an almost unlimited life. (Whatever that means!) At
that time, he told me that since I had a set of the ones which were rather short lived, he
would accept them in trade on a set of the new ones and the cost would be only around
1800 bucks. I now wish I had taken him up on the deal! One of these days I might check
again.
Have any of you on this list ever made such a trade with Allen?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991221 224342 msg12221.tex]

754
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

BDS vs. Brittian (Osborne)

Mon, 3 May 1999 14:44:47

In a message dated 5/3/99 10:26:26 AM Central Daylight Time, flyboy [email protected]

writes:

Does anyone out there have tip tanks from other vendors? If so who and
how much? Or, does anyone know the scoop on the advantages/disadvantages
over one ”brand” or another?
Any help doing my shopping would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Jason

Good Afternoon Jason,

There are currently only two providers of certificated wing tip fuel tanks for the Bonanza
series.
Beryl D Shannon is the current owner of the Safe Flight Extender approval and has
made many improvements to that system over the years.
Osborne is the owner of the certificate for the tip tanks developed by Dr. Brittain.
The BDS tanks are fiberglass and generally hold fifteen gallons. Some of the newer
production units are reported to actually hold 17 to 18 gallons each, but they are still
only approved to carry fifteen. The Osborne tanks hold twenty gallons each and are
made of aluminum.
Several different fuel feed systems have been used by both manufacturers over the years,
but both are currently offering and recommending one that transfers the tip tank fuel
to the adjacent main fuel tank.
Both manufacturers have gross weight approvals available. The amount of the increase,
whether or not you must have fuel in the tank and whether or not the category of the
airplane is changed is very model dependent.
The first thing to do is decide just how you intend to use the extra fuel. Do you need
the extra gross weight capability? Does it bother you if the airplane is certificated in
the normal category rather than the utility?
After such things are determined, check over the offerings from both suppliers to see
which units provide the best approval for your planned use of your individual airplane.
There are a lot of variables dependent on the model airplane you have.
For details, check http://www.dbmods.com/tip-tank-descript.html
I like both!

755
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990503 144447 msg04269.tex]

756
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

Brittain (Osborne)
Wed, 21 Oct 1998 12:53:19

Good Morning Dwaine,

In a message dated 10/21/98 11:11:53 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

I have the Beechcraft wing tip fuel tanks manufactured by Brittain Indus-
tries 20 gal each on my D35 and if I recall correctly they were installed
during the ’60s. I have 3 fuel valves and to feed from the left tip that valve
is ”on” and the right tip valve ”off” and the main fuel selector valve to
”Aux”, etc. The system is difficult to operate in the confined space plus
the two tip valves are stiff to operate. The colder the outside air temps the
worse they are. I have tried different penetrating oils on the valve stems
and it helps a little but not much. Wished I had a one valve set up.

The first set of Brittain’s I had were ones installed at the factory on a new V35. I
believe that was in either 1966 or 1967. They had the nice one unit valve. We later had
a set installed on another airplane in our own shop and it had the same valve setup. I
wonder if yours might have been an earlier deal. It sounds a lot like some of the early
Safe Flight Extender setups that I have seen. Some were a plumbing nightmare. I am
not sure if the single unit would be adaptable to the D35 without some modification. It
was designed to work with the airplanes that had the flow back to their respective tank
rather than to just the left. Maybe one would be available at a reasonable cost at one
of the salvage places. It could probably be installed with a local approval.
Thanks for the information.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19981021 125319 msg06157.tex]

757
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Fuel Guages and Plumbing

Fri, 16 Mar 2001 16:30:36

In a message dated 3/16/01 2:28:42 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

7. Are the sight gauges in the BDS tanks a) accurate, b) useful? Any
recommendations for or against adding the panel-mounted gauges? If so,
why?

Good Afternoon Jeb,

I like the sight gauges. If it were me, I wouldn’t bother with the electric ones at all. I
have them in my airplane as they were required in 1979 when my tip tanks were installed.
On a dark night, you need a good flashlight to read the sight gauges, but about the only
reason I ever look at them is to make certain that they are feeding. The time it takes to
transfer the fuel is very consistent. With my current pumps, it takes one hour to empty
the left tank and an hour and five minutes to empty the right.
I am a great proponent of the tip tank, but don’t have a good handle as to whether or
not they will affect the speed. Tom Turner has some data, which he developed, that
shows a considerable negative affect on the climb rate.
Incidentally, I have the BDS units and am happy with them, but I would like to have
more fuel and the Osbornes are very nice tanks. For extreme long range flight, especially
those flights where you have to have the fuel to make a safe landing, the old style multiple
port valve which Brittain/Osborne used before adopting the BDS style transfer system
added a lot to ones comfort level.
While it takes management regardless of the style of system used, the valve is less likely
to fail than a transfer pump and it allows a little easier evaluation of the fuel remaining
if a fuel flow gauge or tank gauge should fail.
I had a set of Brittains on a V35A that I had in the late 60s that had the selector valve
and I loved it!
I think the most important consideration is which manufacturer has the best weight
allowance for your airplane!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010316 163036 msg05993.tex]

758
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

Gross Weight Increase

Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:30:11

Good Afternoon Bill,

In a message dated 9/15/98 1:41:06 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

Isn’t this because the main part of the gross weight increase comes from
moving the airplane into NORMAL category from UTLILITY category?

Basically true but not completely.

The A36 with BDS tanks remains in the utility category even with a substantial increase
in gross.
On the Straight 35, the gross is reduced to 2435 due to the tip plate effect of the tip
tanks. With the tanks on, there is a slight increase in lift on the outer section of the
wing. That creates a small increase in the bending moment which is compensated for
by reducing the gross. When fuel is added to the tank, that bending moment is reduced
and the gross goes back up to 2550.
Obviously the same adjustment to the bending loads are pertinent to all models of
the airplane. By moving the airplane to the normal category instead of utility, the
justification for the increase in gross weight becomes much easier to substantiate. The
required testing is minimal. Not trivial, but much less than if the structural strength
has to be verified. It consists largely of spin tests.
As we all know, the required loads for normal are not as great as the ones for utility.
It would seem that BDS has convinced the FEDs that the A36 wing is strong enough
to stand up to the bending loads required in utility category even with the increased
bending moment of the tip plate effect of the tip tanks.
What I would like to know is what, if any, differences are there between an A36 wing
and a V35B wing?
It’s all done with mirrors!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19980915 153011 msg05423.tex]

759
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Gross Weight Increase

Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:39:42

In a message dated 9/15/98 1:42:40 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

But practically, why wouldn’t the Osbornes do the same from an aerody-
namic standpoint. Is it a case of BDS asking for more and getting it?

Sure, It is just that BDS spent the time and money to get the approval.
I once asked Allen why he had only a 3550 gross for his tanks on my V35B where
Brittain/Osborne has 3600 gross with their tanks. He told me that he had calculated
that with the reduction of the bending moments allowed when going from the utility
category to normal, the wing should be good for at least 3700 pounds with no other
substantiation. He started out with that goal in mind but in those days, the FAA was
requiring that the tests be made in fifty pound increments. He ran out of money when
they got to 3550 and he had to finalize the program and sell some tanks to fill the
pocketbook.
Such are the vagaries of FAA certification!
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980915 153942 msg05424.tex]

760
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

Gross Weight Increase

Wed, 21 Oct 1998 14:03:44

Good Afternoon John Small,

In a message dated 10/21/98 12:39:19 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

Why is the gross weight increase important? Does this take away a cor-
responding amount of useful load (must unless it increases gross without
increasing empty weight ... by at least a lesser amt).

It isn’t important if you never fly near gross weight. If you occasionally find that you
can’t haul everything you would like to, then having a higher grossweight is a large
advantage.
The greater the range between empty weight and gross weight the more useful you have.
On the S35, the addition of BDS tip tanks will allow 226 pounds more useful load. A
250 pound increase in gross minus the 24 pounds for the tanks, plumbing and such. It
won’t all be payload unless you reduce the amount of fuel in the mains and put at least
twenty-five gallons in the tips as all weight above 3400 must be fuel in the tips.
Remember that to gain that increase in gross on that particular airframe the aircraft is
placed in the normal category rather than utility.
Things vary considerably on different model airplanes and different tip tanks. It takes
some study.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981021 140344 msg06164.tex]

761
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Gross Weight Increase

Wed, 21 Oct 1998 17:54:29

Good Afternoon John Small,

In a message dated 10/21/98 2:13:27 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

Remember that to gain that increase in gross on that particular airframe

the aircraft is placed in the normal category rather than utility.
This is worth a brief explanation as I have not encounter it before. I follow
your msg so far.

This will have to have a disclaimer attached as I am an aviator, not an engineer. All of
you who wish to argue with my statements feel free to jump right in.
The Beechcraft Bonanza has been certificated in the utility category for all except the
straight 35 series.
The normal category requires that the airplane be able to withstand a force of around
3.8 times it’s maximum certificated weight before things start to deform permanently.
An aircraft certificated to the utility category must sustain a load equivalent to about
4.4 times it’s weight before permanent deformation takes place.
If the aircraft is taken from the utility category to the normal category it doesn’t have
to demonstrate it’s strength to as high a degree.
It doesn’t change the strength of the beast, just uses different approval standards.
Most all general aviation aircraft except the Bonanzas are only certificated to normal
category so changing the Bonanza to normal is not putting it in an unusual mode.
The easiest way to substantiate the structural integrity for a higher gross is to change
the category to one that requires less strength. That is what both of the tip tank
manufacturers have done for some of their approvals.
As I said before, there are a lot of variables to be considered as to whether or not you
need or want tip tanks and which ones are best for you. There has been considerable
discussion on this website about tip tanks in the last few months and you might want
to check the archives for more information.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981021 175429 msg06170.tex]

762
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

Gross Weight Increase

Sun, 18 Mar 2001 19:41:13

In a message dated 3/18/01 11:48:27 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Now ... it appears that the BDS site and the materials they faxed – plus
the staff, based on several telephone conversations – are masterful at some-
thing approaching a ”bait and switch” tactic, namely that the gross weight
increase is not included with the tank purchase. Is this the case? If so, and
before I deal with BDS on this issue, does anyone know how much extra
the GW paperwork is?

Good Evening Jeb,

The gross weight increase has been included in the past. If that has changed, this is the
first I have heard about it.
I have found the folks at BDS to be very easy to work with, but Allen himself sometimes
gets carried away and promises things that he has not yet gotten approved. I don’t think
he means to mislead, but that he is sometimes overly optimistic.
To me, the Osborne tanks appear to be the better built of the two and, for some
airplanes, they have the better gross weight approval. For other airplanes, the BDS are
better. When I last talked to BDS at the WBS convention at Oxnard, they were hoping
to get their 3550 approval raised to 3600, the same as the Osbornes have. Now if they
would just get the capacity up to twenty gallons or more!!
I like the folks at both. The choice has to be made on how it works for you.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS It always helps to get everything in writing, but I have just relied on verbal promises
from BDS and they have worked out to my satisfaction.
[ARTICLES/20010318 194113 msg06158.tex]

763
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Gross Weight Increase

Sun, 18 Mar 2001 20:14:12

In a message dated 3/18/01 6:57:39 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

For my bird, the BDS tanks result in a higher MGTOW increase (250 lbs.)
than the Osborne units (200 lbs.) With the BDS units, the first 100 lbs
is a freebie; the remaining 150 must be in fuel in the tips. Which simply
means I take off with 150 lbs. in the tips and pump it into the mains after
burning the equivalent amount.

Good Evening Jeb,

Your airplane must be about the same vintage as my son’s S35. His gained 250 pounds
with the BDS tanks and the weight above 3400 must be fuel in the tips. I would definitely
recommend the BDS tanks to anyone with an S35. On my V35B, the BDS tanks, which
is what I have, only take the gross to 3550. Osborne tanks would take my airplane to
3600.
I asked Allen one time why this is so.
He told me that he really wanted to go to 3700 pounds, but the FAA inspector who
was supervising the flight tests at the time insisted that the flight tests be repeated in
increments of fifty pounds for each fifty pounds above the original gross weight. He ran
out of money at 3550, so that is what we got!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS My son’s airplane has an empty weight of 2048.5 pounds. The BDS tanks give him
a useful load of 1501.5 pounds!!
[ARTICLES/20010318 201412 msg06161.tex]

764
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

Gross Weight Increase

Sun, 18 Mar 2001 21:36:58

In a message dated 3/18/01 7:34:59 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

Hi Bob, is not the gross on an ”S” 3300, or 3350 and not 3400? That makes
the gross with the tips either 3500 or 3550? I think there was something
about the reason in Larry Ball’s Book. Regards, John

Good Evening John,

The standard gross for the S35 is 3300 pounds. With the current BDS approval, the
gross is raised two hundred and fifty pounds to 3550. BDS earlier had an approval to
raise the gross to 3400 pounds with the tip tanks, but as of December 17, 1979, it was
approved for 3550 provided the proper wheels and tires were installed. It can go to 3400
pounds with the tips empty.
I haven’t checked in the last year or two, but last time I DID check, the Brittain/Osborne
gross weight approval was for two hundred pounds for the S35. Things may have
changed!
With the Brittain/Osborne tanks, the S35 grossed 3500 pounds, but there didn’t have
to be ANY fuel in the tips to get that gross.
For the V35 and later, Brittain/Osborne had a two hundred pound increase approval
but there was a small amount of fuel (I don’t remember how much) required to be in
the tank to go above 3400.
So, for your V35 and my V35B we get the best gross weight increase by having Brit-
tain/Osborne tanks. The S35 folks get the largest increase with BDS tanks. There is
a possibility that BDS MAY get the V35 and later up to 3600, but I don’t think they
have the approval yet.
They are trying to get the S35 up there too, but it will probably require VGs to do it!
Why? Because the airplane they used for those tests had VGs!
Obviously, there is no structural difference, It is just a matter of how the approval was
ran through the FEDs. Most of the gross weight increases are based on reducing the
structural requirement by changing the category in which the aircraft is approved. That
is why Allen felt that the gross should be 3700 (or more)! The biggest problem getting
gross weight increases today is meeting the new noise requirements!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010318 213658 msg06166.tex]

765
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Gross Weight Increase - Category

Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:29:28

Good Morning All,

Yesterday during our discussion of tip tanks, I repeated something that I had heard at
STL last week. I should have checked the source before quoting the information.

It would seem that BDS has convinced the FEDs that the A36 wing is
strong enough to stand up to the bending loads required in utility category
even with the increased bending moment of the tip plate effect of the tip
tanks.

This seemed a little odd to me and I was unable to find the verification on the DB
MODS or the BDS websites so I called BDS this morning and was told that while the
tanks do not have to have fuel in them to go to the higher gross weights, the airplane
IS placed in the normal category. I trust that is accurate information.
The DB MODS website shows that the Osborne tanks are the ones that remain in utility
category with increased gross weights but all weights above original must be fuel in the
tips. The allowed gross weight increases on some 36s is not as great as the BDS tanks
either.
I guess any information concerning gross weight increases should be verified by inspec-
tion of the approved airplane flight manual supplement. Verbal assurances are easy to
misinterpret.
Sorry for any inconvenience this misinformation may have caused.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980916 092928 msg05440.tex]

766
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

History
Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:10:18

Good Morning Tom,

In a message dated 10/21/98 7:15:50 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

It sounds like you have one of the later iterations of the BDS tip tanks–
without the ultra-complicated, five-position fuel selector. You also have a
cockpit fuel indicator in addition to the supposed see-through strips on the
tanks. I vastly prefer your version to the earlier types.

Pardon me for butting in but I do have tip tanks as one of my primary interests.
I received Ralph’s message and your reply of this morning but nothing at all as to what
generated the responses. It appears that good old AOL.COM has lost messages for me
once again.
Just a little history.
BDS tanks started life as Safe Flight Extenders. They were designed and built by
a gentleman back east (Long Island or maybe Connecticut I think) who wanted to
eliminate the 20 gallon baggage tank in his C model Bonanza. They were made of
aluminum and held a little over ten gallons each. They are easily spotted by the welds
which held the two halves of the tank together. The flanges of the two halves of the
tank were in the vertical plane and were just torch welded together. Unfortunately a lot
of leaks ensued.
Fiberglass tanks were then tried and those started out around twelve gallons slowly
growing with later versions to fifteen.
The early Flight Extender tip tanks used various combinations of multiple valves which
then fed into the Beech fuel valve used with the baggage tanks through the auxiliary
position.
After Allen Peterson (BDS) bought the STC some twenty or twenty-five years ago,
he designed the transfer system to feed from the tips to the respective mains directly,
thereby eliminating the extra fuel valves or the relatively rare, for Flight Extender/BDS,
one unit fuel valve.
Allen tipped the tank on it’s side about the time Cessna did the same thing to it’s tips,
strictly for looks. When that happened, he lost a couple of tenths of a gallon capacity
so he made a couple of redesigns and after two or three efforts, went to the size he
currently builds which carry over eighteen gallons but are only legally allowed to be
filled to fifteen gallons. Shortly thereafter, about six or eight years ago, he started using
a different fiberglass product and vacuum bagging which makes a lighter and stronger
tank. The new materials are supposed to eliminate any delamination problems which
have affected some of the early fiberglass tanks.

767
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Mine were installed in January of 1979 and are showing no evidence of delamination. I
have been told that BDS has been known to work out a reasonable exchange deal for
the new tanks for those folks who do experience delamination of the old tanks.
The approval for BDS tanks no longer requires the fuel gauge. The experience with
leaving an unpainted strip on the tank to ascertain the amount of fuel left has been
good enough that the FEDs have approved it as the required fuel quantity indicator.
Personally I think it is the best fuel gauge since the wire on the J-3 and the BDS one
never sticks like the J-3 was wont to do.
The Osborne tanks started out as fifteen gallon tanks on a Navion for Dr. Brittain, a
dentist who liked to go to the Baja and do free dentistry for the locals.
They eventually grew to twenty gallons and were adapted for use on the Bonanza, Piper
Comanche and others.
In the Bonanza the Brittains were generally installed with a large one unit fuel valve
which replaced the standard fuel selector and included the extra valve for the fuel return
which appeared on the Beech product some thirty or thirty-five years ago. After Osborne
took over production of the tank from Dr. Brittain, he retained the one unit valve until
some ten years ago when the price of the valve became prohibitive. At that time, a
transfer system similar to the one designed by Allen was offered as a lower cost option.
I am not sure whether the one unit valve is even offered anymore.
This has been written rapidly as I have a dentist appointment I must run to now!
If any one spots any errors or has further questions, let me hear about it.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981021 091018 msg06142.tex]

768
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

Large Capacity Tip Tanks

Tue, 15 Sep 1998 09:28:53

Good Morning Once Again Eric,

In a message dated 9/15/98 7:51:40 AM Central Daylight Time, you wrote:

Speculation on what BD’S thinks their market is going to be for 40-gallon

tanks that aren’t even STC’d is left as an exercise for the reader. ;-)

Allen has made several different size tanks thus far and a few years ago was attempting
to get 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 gallon ones approved. He had the forties on display at the
ABS convention in Spokane.
Getting the tanks approved is becoming increasingly more and more difficult. Frank
Haile, the gentleman who has built the eleven sets of Dolly Partons that are currently
operating in various parts of the world, is the pushing force behind getting BDS to
build the forty gallon tanks. That is the size he really wanted when he began modifying
surplus drop tanks into the Dollys. The surplus tanks just didn’t adapt well to being
reduced that much in size.
I do believe there are two sets of the 100 gallon per side tanks that are currently approved
in standard category. One is in Germany and the other is in Belgium. They are restricted
to fifty gallons maximum per side on those two installations.
One of those belongs to Guenter who asked about manpower flat rate times a few days
ago so he might comment here!
I spoke to Mike Trudeau (Allen Peterson’s DER at BD’S) and Frank Haile at STL.
Both said that certification of the forties is still under consideration but not likely in the
current FAA environment.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19980915 092853 msg05396.tex]

769
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Large Capacity Tip Tanks

Mon, 19 Mar 2001 08:05:40

In a message dated 3/19/01 5:44:30 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I think it was Scott who told me, a year or two ago, that they had some
40-gallon tanks that were either in the fabrication stage or were ready for
test flight. But the odd thing was, they had no plans (at the time) to
STC them. They were going to offer them for ferry-permit flights across
the ocean, then when you get where you’re going you take them off and
re-install your old wingtips or STC’d tip tanks.

Good Morning Eric,

I don’t have all of the details, but I think you will find that those tanks were made
by BDS under the sponsorship of Frank Haile of Dolly Parton or Texas Tips fame. I
missed seeing them, but was told BDS had a set of them at one of the ABS conventions,
possibly the one in Spokane.
It doesn’t take a whole lot of work to make up a set of forms to make such tanks. The
big hang up is the certification costs.
BDS has also made a set of forms for, and a least one set of, the 100 gallon per side
tanks, in cooperation with Frank. They used a set of his modified drop tank Dolly
Partons to make the mold.
Four or five years ago, Allen was telling of a project that was to provide a series of tanks
all of the way from 15 up to 40 gallons per side in five gallon increments. Supposedly,
he had convinced a FED that he could do the approval with the forty gallon tanks and
it would apply to the entire series. Evidently, that contact with the FEDs didn’t work
out as planned, but I think that was the reason for building the forty gallon set.
He made a 25 gallon per side tank a few years ago which was almost the same shape as
the standard BDS tank but had an extension which fit inside the outer bay of the wing
tip. He had another project where he made a whole new fiberglass leading edge D tube
which, when combined with the standard BDS tip tanks, runs the total fuel capacity up
somewhere around 150 to 160 gallons.
Lot’s of R&D with Allen Peterson!
His company has been close to bankruptcy several times. Many people feel that his
mind is so busy thinking of ways to improve his product and come out with new gadgets
that it is hard to sell what he has. Everyone wants to wait for something that is ”about
to be certificated.”
It was expensive R&D that put Mike Smith out of business!
We are fortunate that there are people like Allen willing to try new things that don’t

770
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

often become financially profitable items.

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010319 080540 msg06195.tex]

771
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Plumbing
Sat, 6 Sep 1997 10:08:47

P.S on the fuel flow.

I believe that the S35 was the first one with a double valve unit One valve on top of the
other in a single casting. I am sure that all of the V35s had that arrangement.
When you switch to the left main the return line is directed to the left main and when
the right tank is selected, the fuel return is directed to the right main. On the S35s ,
V35s and V35As that I have had with tip tanks things were a little different. There are
several different metods of plumbing tip tanks but all that I have owned with brittain
tanks have had the return line fed to the left main any time that you were on the tip
feed.
My current V35B has the tips transfer to the respective tank, right tip to right main
and left tip to left main.
There are advantages and diadvantages to both systems. The main thing is to be sure
you understand how YOUR system works.
As always,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970906 100847 msg01670.tex]

772
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

Plumbing
Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:40:55

In a message dated 12/20/00 2:44:28 PM Central Standard Time, Jeff [email protected]

writes:

I have a few questions that I hope you can help with. The M35 I just
purchased, has the Beech/Brittain wing tip aluminum tanks #55000. I
have the 337 and flight manual supplement for this, but there is not enough
detail to answer my questions.

Good Afternoon Jeff,

Welcome to the Wonderful World Of Bonanza Ownership!
While there will be some difficulties answering your question due to potential differences
in the type of valves and plumbing installed on your M35, I will be happy to comment
based on what I have read thus far. If this does not seem consistent with the what you
see on your aircraft, please question further.

First, I have 2-25g mains and the 2-10g aux tanks. I was told that these
tip tanks feed into the aux tanks, correct?

That is highly unlikely, but not impossible. The Brittain tip tanks were not offered as
an option on your airplane, so were obviously installed as an aftermarket item. Several
different valving systems were tried by different installers, but I have never seen one in
which the tip tank fuel was transferred to the aux tanks before use.
There were a few where another valve was added which had three possible positions.
Left Tip Tank, Combined Ten Gallon Wing Tanks (they feed together as a single tank
if the flapper valve is working correctly, but that’s another story) and Right Tip Tank.
The output from that valve was then led into what had been the single aux tank inlet
on the factory installed fuel valve.
The newer version of the Brittain tank is manufactured by Osborne. The other system
readily available is the one currently made by Beryl D’ Shannon.
Most of the newer BDS systems use a transfer system whereby fuel is fed by a small
transfer pump from the individual tip tank to the main fuel tank on it’s respective side.
The Osborne and Brittain tanks generally have a valve with multiple ports whereby the
engine may be fed directly from the tank selected. Osborne has been offering an option
for the last ten years or so of using a transfer system similar to the majority of the BDS
installations.

Rate of Feed?

If your system is one where the engine feeds directly from the fuel tank selected, it will
feed the fuel as fast as the engine wants to use it!

773
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

If your system uses a transfer pump to move the tip tank fuel to another tank, they
usually transfer at the rate of approximately fifteen GPH per pump. The rate of transfer
can vary from around twelve to as much as eighteen though.

I was told that the overflow from these would flow into the left main tank,
correct?

I think we must define what we mean by ”overflow”!

If any of the tanks, Tip, Aux, or Main is overfilled, the surplus will drain overboard and
be lost.
If we are discussing the fuel which is returned from the fuel injection system to the fuel
supply source, that is something else!
There is a double valve arrangement on the factory installed primary fuel selector which
directs where the excess fuel from the fuel injection system goes. If the engine is being
fed from a Main tank, the excess flow will be directed back into the tank which has been
selected.
If the engine is feeding from the two combined aux tanks, the excess flow will go to the
Left Main.
If your airplane has the valve which allows you to select the Tip Tank directly or through
the aux position of the primary factory installed fuel valve, the excess flow will go to
the Left Main.

I am transitioning from a C182 and having lots of fun learning new ways
to embarrass myself in front of my instructor. I really like this airplane a
lot! I used to fly with my dad in his ’47 model 35, but is a whole bunch
different now from the left seat rather than the right.

There is nothing else which flies and handles as nice as those early straight 35s, but the
newer Bonanzas do have some speed and payload advantages. I am sure you will enjoy
the M35. The tip tanks may slow you down a knot or two, but they really add a lot to
the flexibility of the aircraft.
Depending on the plumbing installed in your aircraft, fuel management of the six tank
system can be something of a challenge, but not really difficult.
I hope this is of some help.
If It is just confusing, give me as much information as you can and I will try to answer
your question.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/20001220 184055 msg18136.tex]

774
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

Pros and Cons

Sat, 6 Nov 1999 02:22:22

In a message dated 11/5/99 5:11:39 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob, do you have tip tanks on your V35B? One minute I see advantages
in them, the next I see only disadvantages. What is your take on the pros
and cons of adding this somewhat expensive option?
Thanks.
-jts

Good Morning John,

Do I have tip tanks? Yes. My airplane had BDS tanks on it when I bought it. They
were installed in January 1979 when the airplane was just a couple of months old.
What do I consider the pros and cons?
As always, it depends! It depends on the use to be made of the airplane. If your
operation includes a requirement for long stage lengths, maybe over water or over very
inhospitable terrain, then I don’t think there can be any question that tips are almost
a necessity.
Another pilot who regularly flies over extensive low ceilings far from good alternates
would also find good use for the extra fuel. It is very comforting to be sitting on four
hours of fuel when the ceiling is indefinite two hundred with visibility at 1/2 variable
1/4 to 1/2. Such conditions are often found in the midwest where the closest decent
alternate is two to three hundred miles away.
But even if long range is not important to you, possibly the convenience of being able to
ferry fuel into that neat back country fishing hole might make the acquisition worthwhile.
I have done a fair amount of flying in the Bahamas and the Caribbean. It is not unusual
to arrive at an airport only to be informed that the last aviation fuel was sold an hour
ago and the next shipment won’t be in for a week or two.
I can’t imagine me not having tip tanks on the airplane considering the type of things
for which I use the airplane!
NOTE: The following paragraphs are based on data that was applicable the last time
I checked the appropriate tables. Certification status does change and either or both
manufacturers may have different numbers available at this time.
Another good reason for buying tips is if you need a little extra legal payload capability.
Suppose you have an S model Bonanza. You could add BDS tip tanks and gain 226
pounds of useful load. The GW increase is 250 pounds and the tanks only weigh 24. You
would have to carry twenty-five gallons in the tips to get the full GW increase and there

775
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

is that stupid requirement for 26 gallons in the mains for takeoff, but that would mean
that everything else could be payload. I had a fairly well equipped S model many years
ago with an empty weight of just under 2100 pounds. With BDS tips you could carry
that 51 gals of fuel plus 1144 pounds in the cabin. That’s four hours of fuel at about
60% power. Pretty spectacular numbers! Should you elect to use the Brittain/Osborne
tanks, the gross would only go to 3500 pounds, but you wouldn’t have to carry any
fuel in the tips to get it. You would have a useful load of 1400 pounds, subtract the
minimum takeoff fuel of 26 gallons and you would be able to carry 1244 pounds in the
cabin but with only a little over two hours of fuel available.
If you have no need for long range, don’t fly into low ceilings, have no need to ferry fuel
and little need to haul heavy payloads, then there is no reason to purchase tip tanks!
Tom Turner did some tests a few years ago that showed a considerable loss in take
off and climb performance following a tip tank installation. I have always felt there
was very little performance penalty with the tips, but I have never done any scientific
measurements. It would be interesting to do so.
I like them so much that I would still have tips even if it meant the loss of a couple of
knots of cruise. I don’t think there is that much loss, especially at the cruise speeds I
usually fly, but I sure don’t know!
Incidentally, I like my BDS tanks, but if I were buying tanks for my V35B, I would buy
the Osbornes. They give fifty more pounds of GW increase and hold ten more gallons
total than the BDS ones. If I had an S35, my choice would be the BDS units.
If one is purchasing tip tanks, it is important to evaluate them based on your individual
airplane and to look carefully at what the approval status is for each manufacturers
product.
I believe my choice for the P model would be the BDS.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991106 022222 msg10220.tex]

776
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

Stability
Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:27:20

In a message dated 11/6/99 8:11:43 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

One thing I particularly note you did not include is stability. I have been
told by one owner of the Osborne tanks (on a J35, retired Eastern Airlines
pilot) that he keeps them 1/2 full for the added stability. Both in roll and
tail waggle. I have also been told by others that the roll is less responsive
with tip tanks and that they saw no difference in the waggle.
Let’s say they do help with tail waggle. Would this effect be sufficient to
make adding a yaw damper moot?
Have you an opinon on these properties?
Thanks.
-jts

Good Morning John,

You know I have an opinion!!
There is an effect on roll and it is variable depending on the amount of fuel in the
tanks. More fuel and it takes more effort to get the wing rolling and more effort to get
it stopped once it is rolling. (If you are flying an aerobatic aircraft, the ”carry through”
in an aileron roll is cool!) I don’t consider it enough different to have that factor enter
into the decision as to whether or not I have fuel in the tips. If I anticipate flight into
turbulence, I will tend to keep the fuel in the tips as long as practical to gain the extra
strength that full tanks provide.
As to an increase in yaw stability, I haven’t made any effort to document a difference,
but I would imagine there is some effect similar to that in the roll mode. It might take a
little more to get things swinging and would likely take a little more effort to get things
stopped!
All of this is highly speculative on my part. I don’t notice enough difference such that
it would enter in any decision to purchase or not purchase the tips.
I have an electronic yaw damper on my airplane and feel that it does almost as good
a job of stopping yaw as I can do if I place all of my attention to that task. It does
a WHOLE LOT better job than I do most of the time. I would comment that I don’t
think the skeg is worth the trouble of putting it on. It adds weight where it isn’t needed,
makes it difficult to inspect the tail, interferes with the tail tie down ring and interferes
with cleaning the belly. Holding the rudder pedals still will do as good a job as the skeg.
In fact, the directions that come with the skeg state that you should hold the rudder
pedals still to gain maximum effectiveness.

777
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Once again, the effect of the tip tanks on yaw stability is, to me, insignificant.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991106 102720 msg10231.tex]

778
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

Stability
Fri, 16 Mar 2001 20:16:48

In a message dated 3/16/01 6:46:32 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

How do some of you other people with tip tanks feel it affects the roll feel?

Good Evening Dave,

When the tanks are full, there is a definite heavier feel to the airplane. The ailerons
actually are slightly more powerful, due to the tip plate effect, but it takes longer to get
the extra weight moving. Once it is rolling, the roll rate is possibly even a little higher
than before. I haven’t measured it, but it does feel that way.
Back in the days when I was stupidly doing such things, I found that aileron rolls with
the tips installed were even easier and nicer than with the tanks off. With the tanks
full, it provided a nice fly wheel effect that made for a beautiful roll.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010316 201648 msg06006.tex]

779
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Tip Tanks Provide Lift?

Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:55:47

In a message dated 11/4/99 6:50:36 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

The way it was explained to me by Scott Erickson or Dave Biggerstaff,

I forget which, was that the tanks are designed to provide enough lift to
support their own weight at cruise when full.

Good Afternoon Eric,

I am afraid that is a bunch of salesman hyperbola. The approval is strictly based on
structural and other certification data. The change in lift distribution on the wing is a
function of the tip plate effect and only serves to DECREASE the structural integrity
when the tank is empty. The structure is plenty strong enough on most models so that
the redistribution is not a problem, but that is why there are so many different weights
and approvals for the different models of the airplane. It is also a factor in whether or
not fuel is required to be boarded to attain the increase. Even with that, a lot of the
restrictions are based on very little engineering analysis. It depends on the inspector
assigned by the FAA and how the applicant wants to develop the data.
I think you will find that any increase in lift was a fortuitous event, though the effect
was expected.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991104 135547 msg10157.tex]

780
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

Tip Tanks Utility

Mon, 12 Jan 1998 08:28:35

Good Morning Paul,

I am of the opinion that tip tanks are a marvelous addition for most any Bonanza,
Debonair or Model 36.
It isn’t just the additional range but the ability to ”tanker” fuel into those interesting
but off the beaten path destinations and the comfort that comes from having two to four
hours of fuel on board when executing a low approach to an airport with the nearest
good alternate an hour or two away.
I have had both Brittain (Now Osborne) and Beryl D’ Shannon (Was Safe Flight Ex-
tender) tanks on various personal airplanes and like them both. The Osbornes are
aluminum, very well made and hold twenty gallons each. The BDS tanks are fiberglass,
seem to be adequately constructed and are certificated for fifteen gallons each. It seems
that most of the newest ones will actually hold a little over seventeen gallons each though
they are not certificated for such.
Gross weight approvals are available with the installation of both manufacturers tanks.
The amount varies with different airplanes and approvals so you need to research which
tanks will do what to your airplane. Incidentally the gross weight approval is generally
allowed because of the change from the utility category to the normal category. There
are some cases with the tip tanks empty where the bending loads are increased and other
points (especially when the tanks are full) where the structural integrity of the aircraft
is increased.
Both manufacturers have had direct tank to engine fuel selection available in the past.
Both are now offering pumps to transfer fuel to their respective mains which is much
cheaper and has certain operational advantages.
Back to usage. Thelma Jean and I left Chicago for Tucson last Wednesday and arrived
there seven hours and fifty minutes later with sixteen gallons still on board. We don’t
normally make that long a flight due to the necessity for comfort stops. We have on
occasions made stops where the need for comfort was immediate and no service was
available. It was nice to have plenty of fuel to be able to fire up and proceed to our
destination without having to stop again for fuel.
On Sunday we returned from Tucson to C24 with a flight time of eight hours wheels
up to touch down. Since the weather was a little more of a concern, we used economy
cruise and arrived home with twenty gallons on board.
Pretty fabulous transportation capability for an old man like me.
My current airplane has eighty gallons in the mains and early fifteen gallon BDS tips.
Total one hundred and ten gallons.
Look them both over and if you still have questions let us all know.

781
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Happy Skies
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19980112 082835 msg00251.tex]

782
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

Tip Tanks Utility

Tue, 24 Mar 1998 23:41:23

Good Evening Eric Poole,

In a message dated 98-03-24 21:17:07 EST, you write:

and while I haven’t seen any claims one way or the other I can imagine a
few knots speed loss with the tip tanks (extra drag, etc.).
On the other hand, I get another 200 lbs of gross weight with the tip tanks.

I feel that the tip tanks are the single finest improvement you can make to your airplane.
You get an immediate increase in useful load of around 176 pounds. 200 increase in gross
less the weight of the tanks and pumps etc.
I have had several airplanes equipped with tip tanks and have never been able to establish
a finite reduction in speed. I have heard tales of a two mph loss at high indicated
airspeeds and a draw at lower indicated speeds. I am convinced there is no more than
a two mile per hour loss, if that.
The gross weight increase alone is worth the price but it is awfully comforting to have
flown a two or three hour flight over marginal weather to an approach that may be
missed and know that you still have enough fuel on board to hold for an hour or so,
divert to an alternate two hours away and still arrive at your alternate with an hours
fuel on board.
If you don’t feel comfortable flying your single engine airplane in that type of weather,
the tip tanks often come in handy to ferry fuel to some of those interesting out of the
way fields that do not have fuel available.
A couple of years ago my wife and I flew our Bonanza from the Chicago area to Basin
Harbor, a resort just south of Burlington Vermont. A very nice place with a beautiful
sod strip but no fuel available. After a few days we went on down to Myrtle Beach S.C.
and still had a couple of hours fuel on board on arrival. We have flown many trips to
Mexico and the Caribbean where airports that were supposed to have fuel ran out just
before we got there.
Having plenty of fuel on board for arrival was always nice.
Another problem that I have noted in recent years is the problem of finding adequate
fuel stops for flight at night around the US. If fuel is needed at 10 PM or midnite, it
is often necessary to call someone out to the airport or divert far off the desired course
to find fuel. Once again the advantage of being able to ferry fuel becomes very nice to
have.
I suppose if one never flies in bad weather, at night or to places that may or may not
have fuel available there really isn’t much reason to buy tip tanks but for the way we
use our airplane, they are essential. I just wish I could afford bigger ones!

783
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Incidentally, this subject has been thoroughly discussed over the past few months on
this site and I suppose further research could be done in the Beech- Owners archives.
If they are within your budget, buy them!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980324 234123 msg01362.tex]

784
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

Tip Tanks Utility

Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:13:11

Good Morning J Dowen,

In a message dated 9/15/98 9:31:04 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

As the owner of a ”StretchDebbie” with GAMI’s, I can only marvel at the

range my plane would have with tip tanks and running LOP.

Your airplane is truly a magic carpet now. I once flew a 36 equipped with BDS 15 gallon
tips nonstop from Puerto Rico to Tampa Florida and still had adequate reserves. Great
fun! (And that was before GAMIs.)
I think the most useful function of the tip tank is the ability to tanker fuel. Many times
in the Bahamas I have arrived at my destination only to find out that they were out of
fuel and none would be available till the next mail boat came in. The tips allow me to
arrive with plenty of fuel to make it back to Nassau or someplace else that will likely
have fuel. A few years ago we met friends at Basin Harbor Vermont for a few days
relaxation and then flew on to Myrtle Beach, SC for a flyin. The fifteen gallon tips on
my V-tail provided plenty of range to go from Chicago to Basin Harbor and then on
down to Myrtle Beach with IFR reserves. (No fuel available at Basin Harbor.)

Do you know which tank system is better for weight increase for the A-36?

As of the DBS MODS webpage dated March 16, 1997 (http://www.dbmods.com/index.html)

the BDS units seem to have the edge. You get the gross weight increase without having
to have fuel in the tanks.

I had BDS on my M35 and had no problems. I had a gauge installed in the
cockpit that reliably told me where my tip tank fuel was. They fed directly
into my mains. My aux tanks were another story, though. I miss a lot of
things about my M35 but the labyrinthine fuel system is not one of them.
I like the 80 gallon two tank system I have now.

It is nice. Especially now that we have such accurate and reliable electronic fuel flow
units available. My middle son has a J35 with the same tanks as your M35 and he
is planning on adding tip tanks soon. I came up with a method to use the tip tank
transfer pumps to transfer the aux tank fuel that I think is pretty neat. I contacted
Mike Trudeau of BDS to see what his thoughts were and he informed me that Allen
Peterson had come up with the same idea several years ago but decided the market was
too small to bother with approval. Mike thought it was a good candidate for a local
approval.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19980915 111311 msg05409.tex]

785
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Tip Tanks Utility

Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:02:35

Good Afternoon Scott,

In a message dated 9/15/98 11:49:29 AM Central Daylight Time, sderrick@yahoo-
eng.com writes:

I own a straight 35 and am ready for a pit stop way before the 54 gals are
close to mins....

To my knowledge the straight 35 is not approved for any gross weight increase by either
tank manufacturer. In fact, the only approval I am aware of is the one by Safe Flight
Extenders (Now owned by BDS). It is my recollection that the gross weight with the tip
tanks empty is reduced to 2435 and all weight above that amount must be fuel in the
tip tanks whenever they are installed. Thus you must have a little over nineteen gallons
in the tips to go to 2550 gross. To that must be added the minimum fuel in each main
required by the so-called slosh problem.
All of the later (A model on) airplanes gain a substantial amount of legal payload
capability by adding tip tanks. For some people on certain airplanes such as an A36
with BDS tanks, that can amount to around a 176 pound increase in payload if they
never put a drop in the tanks.
It is by far the cheapest per pound price of additional legal payload that I am aware of.
BDS’s vortex generator approval may be better, but I don’t have the numbers available.
As I have stated often today, I think tankering fuel is the point I like best.
It is nice to arrive in a place that is down around minima and the nearest good alternate
a couple of hours away with four or more hours of fuel still in the wings.
I have found that fewer and fewer airports are available for refueling late at night. I
have made pit-stops where if I needed fuel it would have been necessary to get someone
out to the airport in the middle of the night, often at considerable expense or at least
at considerable inconvenience to the person who would come to provide me fuel. With
the tips, I can make a comfort stop and then press on.
For those who have little need for more payload, never fly to remote areas, don’t use
airports with no fuel facilities, aren’t comfortable on long range flights, prefer not to fly
at night or over extensive low ceilings, the tip tanks don’t make much sense. For me
they add tremendously to the flexible use of my airplane.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19980915 140235 msg05417.tex]

786
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

Tip Tanks Utility

Wed, 21 Oct 1998 11:26:20

Tom:
Back from the dentist and still able to navigate!
I have owned several sets of Brittain (now Osborne) tanks over the years and still
think they are the best built tanks available. I also like the twenty gallon feature. If
someone had thirty gallon tanks available I would buy them! Back before we had such
fine electronic fuel flow gauges, the ability to run each tank dry separately so as to
accurately gauge the amount of fuel burned and fuel remaining was a great feature and
I really liked the single valve unit used.
The current feelings about running tanks dry being what they are, it is an advantage
to have the transfer capability. I have been working on a procedure where we could use
the transfer pumps to take the fuel from the aux tanks on my sons J35 instead running
on the aux tanks simultaneously as we do now. As you know, there is often a problem
getting the aux tanks to feed evenly on those airplanes so equipped.
When I purchased my current airplane, I considered the BDS tanks to be a negative
and considered replacing them with Osborne units.
I have been pleasantly surprised with the installation and the tanks. The transfer system
has been much more reliable than I thought it would be. With further evaluation of the
tanks presently available on the market, I feel that it is primarily a matter of what the
gross weight approval is for the individual airplane. I would look at both and choose
the one that gained the most for the individual model of Bonanza concerned.
While I am very pleased with my BDS tanks and the folks at BDS, I would probably
buy Osborne’s for my V35B if I had none presently installed. The approval would give
me fifty pounds greater gross weight and they carry ten more gallons.
If I had an S35 I would seriously consider the BDS tanks as they provide a 250 pound
increase on that airframe.
For my son’s J35, the logical choice would also be the BDS units as the gross weight
increase is greater than the Osborne and is available whether there is fuel in the tanks
or not.
Once again, it is important to evaluate both and choose the one that fits your desires
best.
Both are excellent products.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19981021 112620 msg06148.tex]

787
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Tip Tanks Utility

Sat, 6 Nov 1999 12:10:06

In a message dated 11/6/99 8:03:31 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I do fly long legs, IMC/night and over inhospitable terrain. I would like
to have the capacity for four adults (heavier than the std FAA adult) and
baggage.

Good Morning John,

Flight at night is another phase where I find the tip tanks helpful. It fits into that
’ferrying fuel’ category.
I find that there are not as many refueling operations available around the country after
sundown as there were twenty or thirty years ago. The long range of the corporate fleet
has made it uneconomical for many FBOs to maintain an allnight operation. I find that
my wife and I will often make a comfort stop along the way where no fuel is available.
Being able to carry enough fuel to get through the night is very helpful, though the legs
may be short. Even if fuel is available, there is often a charge made for the fueler to
come to the airport. I don’t think such a charge is unreasonable, but if I don’t have to
pay it, so much the better!
Incidentally, There is something else I should mention which might be of some influence
in the decision as to which tank to purchase. The older BDS tanks, such as I have, seem
to have a limited life. Many have started to delaminate and cause other difficulties.
They do not hold any more than fifteen gallons and some are even a couple of tenths
below that. The newer BDS units are made of a lighter and stronger material which
should have a much longer life. They hold seventeen to as many as eighteen gallons,
though it is only legal to put fifteen gallons in them. I think the Osborne tanks are
a more sophisticated construction and look a little more substantial, but I have had
excellent service from my old tanks and excellent cooperation from BDS. I like both
products and the principals at both companies!
The last time I spoke to BDS, (around Oshkosh time) they said they had twenty-five
gallon tanks close to an approval!
I think it would be great if that happened. I would imagine we would then have a battle
between Osborne and BDS to see who could get the biggest tanks approved and that
would be good for us all.
Allen Peterson, the gentleman who owns BDS, told me many years ago that he felt the
late Bonanzas should be able to be approved to at least 3700 pounds. The Part 36 noise
restrictions may stop that from happening, but it would be nice.
Even at the currently approved weights, I find that my wife and I plus baggage normally
places us well below gross. Thirty gallons on a side, sixty total in the tips would be just

788
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

perfect for us!

I would like to see a ten gallon plug stuck in the middle of the Osborne tank. Think
how classy a long tank like that would look!!
Allen has made some forty gallon tanks, but they are not yet approved.
Two inches added all of the way around (four inch greater diameter) would make the
BDS tank a thirty gallon tank with the same length as the current unit!
Enough rambling for Saturday morning.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991106 121006 msg10233.tex]

789
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Tip Tanks Utility

Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:59:59

In a message dated 6/22/00 9:13:11 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

The main advantage of more fuel capacity for most folks is the ability to
travel on days of widespread IFR wx and have legal alternate fuel. Days
when the wx is widespread between 500-800 and vis between 1-3 miles
precludes airports from being listed as legal alternates for flight planning
purposes. We never intend to fly more that a couple of hours, but the
closest legal alternate may be 400 miles the other way, and into headwinds.
Kind of like an emergency fund.
Stuart Spindel A&P IA Baron E-55 (IO-550 powered) Stuart Spindel A&P
IA

Good Morning Stuart,

I agree wholeheartedly that the primary advantage is in being able to name a good
alternate, but I feel that other advantageous uses are often overlooked.
There are many destinations where the ability to ferry in enough fuel to get back out of
town again is very helpful.
The obvious ones are places like some of the Bahamian Islands where the availability of
fuel is often tenuous or some of the nice fishing holes in Canada and elsewhere where
fuel is either not available or extremely expensive.
Not so obvious are resorts such as Basin Harbor, Vermont.
That is a very nice destination, but (at least the last time we were there) fuel is not
available. It is nice to be able to leave without having to make a stop just to get fuel.
The physical requirement for a comfort stop is dependent on the individual pilot and
passenger mix. I find that it varies for my wife and me. We will often start out with a
plan for a long nonstop trek and then decide in an hour or two that a comfort stop is
advisable.
There have been occasions where the place we picked to stop had no fuel available. Sure
was nice to be able to continue the trip to our destination without having to make an
extra stop just for fuel.
Another way to put it is that you don’t have to worry about whether or not your comfort
stop has fuel available!
These days, the price of fuel can be a consideration. While I would rarely land just to
get low priced fuel, if a fuel stop is required before the destination, it is advantageous to
be able to pick a refueling spot that has an easy in and out along with reasonable fuel
prices.

790
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

The more one flies an airplane that has such great fuel flexibility, the more that flexibility
grows on you!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000622 105959 msg09991.tex]

791
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Tip Tanks Utility

Sat, 27 Jan 2001 23:21:05

In a message dated 1/27/01 9:29:14 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Ok, I understand. However that was the tone of the message from my
mechanic as I understood it. Of course the major impediment remains the
$10k asking price!

Good Evening John,

Nice to have you active again!
The tips are not cheap, but, depending on your need, they can be a very wise investment.
If you fly the type of IFR which require alternates a long way from your destination,
the tips may allow operations that could not otherwise be conducted in a Bonanza.
If you fly to points off the beaten track, the tips allow you to make those flights without
the need to pick up fuel at those remote destinations.
If absolute maximum payload capability is important, the tips cost less per pound of
allowable payload than any other expenditure you could make.
The tips make sense to me for my type of flying. They are not for everybody.
If you have no need for additional range and no need for additional payload, the tips
are just unnecessary drag and weight.
Remember that the additional payload does not come without cost.
Beechcraft lists the S35 as being two knots faster than the V35. The only difference
between the two, which would affect the speed, is the increased gross weight. The extra
one hundred pounds slowed the airplane down two knots. If you have a V35B equipped
with Brittain Tip Tanks, the new max gross is 3600 pounds. It would be reasonable to
expect that the airplane would possibly be as much four knots or more slower at 3600
pounds than it would be at 3400.
If you want a fast airplane, keep it light. Even the best rigged and lowest drag airplane
is going to be slowed down when it is heavy.
Your airplane with an IO-550, 409 prop and no tip tanks would undoubtedly run the
pants off of my old V35B, even with the same load aboard, if for no other reason than
your airframe is likely to be a couple of hundred pounds, or more, lighter than mine.
Every time you add a new toy without removing anything, the airplane gets slower!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob

792
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

[ARTICLES/20010127 232105 msg02050.tex]

793
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Tip Tanks and Three Bladed Prop

Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:49:17

In a message dated 6/20/00 2:37:23 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Seems as if I heard a story once that the propeller on an A36 was an

important factor with tips...also, that gap seals were also key. Any thoughts
on this?
Ed

Good Afternoon Ed,

I have heard some stories concerning aileron flutter or, at least, a little buzz when the
tip tanks are combined with a three blade. I have had several airplanes with the three
blade and once had a four blade. I never noticed any unusual vibration. Additional
balance weights are required on the ailerons for some installations.
I have never noted a problem with an airplane with gap seals, but I haven’t flown all
that many which were so equipped.
If a problem does occur, I think it could be easily rectified. There are enough of them
out in the field that whatever is causing a vibration must be easy to fix.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000620 154917 msg09945.tex]

794
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS

Wing Strength
Sat, 26 Jul 1997 09:19:21

Hi Tom,
You’re thinking, but you need to keep going.
The weight in the wing tip tanks decreases the bending moment at whatever point you
decide to use for analysis. ( I must step carefully here as I am not an engineer and I
know the professionals can eat me alive here if I am not careful.) The usual point for
consideration is at the wing root. Draw a little chart or vector diagram using that point
as a fulcrum. You will note that weight added at the tip will counteract weight in the
fuselage thus making the airplane stronger when the tanks are full.
All modern transport aircraft that I am aware of use this factor in their structural
calculations. Most have a ”Zero Fuel Weight” number and all weight above that figure
must be fuel in the wing tanks, the closer to the tips the better!
In another life I had the opportunity to fly the French built Caravelle transport. It was
equipped with small wing tanks within the wings but located as far out as possible.
(I think they were around 500 gallons on a side), when those tanks were full our red
line was 50 knots faster than when empty so we carried them full all of the time and
never used that fuel except in an extreme need situation. In fact we had a schedule
for draining the tanks and refilling them during ground maintenance so that the fuel
wouldn’t go bad!
Now back to the present.
There is an increase in the bending moment on the wing when the tip tanks are empty.
That is caused by the increase in efficiency of the outboard section of the wing due to
tip plate effect This moves the center of lift on the wing panel outboard a little bit which
increases the bending moment at the fulcrum. It can be compensated for by decreasing
the allowable fuselage load sufficiently to counteract the longer moment arm. I have
been told that it takes approximately a four percent reduction of the gross weight in the
Bonanza (or Debonair or stretch Debonair) to compensate for this increased bending
moment.
The reason the airplane is taken from the utility to the normal category is to avoid the
structural analysis and testing that would be necessary to prove that the four percent
was not a problem for the Bonanza airframe. It also allows an increase in the gross
weight on some of the airframes. The straight 35 with early Safe Flight extender tip
tanks was restricted to 2435 gross with the tanks empty instead of the normal 2500.
Very roughly and simplistically if you multiply the gross weight of your airplane by 4.4
then divide that figure by 3.8 and then divide that by 1.04 you will arrive at what loads
could be carried and still meet the normal category requirements.
I hope you aeronautical engineers out there will forgive my pilots view. I know there are

795
4.12. EQUIP-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

a lot of dynamic loads and other stuff to be considered but it seems that an explanation
such as this usually works for us aviator types.
As for gust load considerations, I would suggest you read ”Aerodynamics for Naval
Aviators”. It has an nice readable section on that subject.
Have fun,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970726 091921 msg01371.tex]

796
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.13. EQUIP-TOW

4.13 EQUIP-TOW

797
4.13. EQUIP-TOW CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Winching the Airplane

Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:42:09

In a message dated 1/7/00 11:16:59 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Thanks for the ideas on towing back into a hanger. I planned to use a
bridle on the mains, but like Howard’s idea of letting the nose gear take
the load and the tail tiedown acting as a guide.

Good Afternoon Cal,

I know I am a few days late reading your message, but I would like to comment!
I would not recommend putting any appreciable strain on the nose gear mechanism
without that force being applied via the shear pins that are designed to break if the
forces applied are too high.
I especially don’t like the thought of those forces being applied backwards!! The factory
did begrudgingly supply an information letter about thirty or forty years ago with a
figure for an allowable pull on the tail tiedown fitting. I believe it was for something like
a five hundred pound pull maximum.
The best bet is to pull backwards via the main gear and the older manuals do have a
description of the sling required and the fittings necessary to fit in the axle stubs.
Glad to hear that the Debbie is still going strong!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000112 144209 msg00677.tex]

798
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.14. EQUIP-TURBO

4.14 EQUIP-TURBO

799
4.14. EQUIP-TURBO CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Configuration
Sat, 9 Aug 1997 13:59:18

Interesting comment on the Turbo-normalizer, George.

I have found that you are generally right and I don’t wish to question your conclusions,
BUT back when I was taught such things we were told that the reason for using a reduced
compression ratio in supercharged engines was that you could recover the lost cylinder
pressure by using some boost and the engine would breath better and have a better SFC
at the same cylinder pressures that you would get with the higher compression ratios.
As to the Cessna style turbo used by the Pagosa Springs troops, it is my understanding
that it uses a high upper deck pressure at all times which leads to considerably less
efficiency than the Beech style variable controller. Back in the olden days when I was
selling Bonanzas the addition of turbocharging on the 210 cost about $3000.00 and the
one on the Bonanza cost $7000.00. When I complained about the cost differential to
Beech I was told the the $4000.00 was strictly the cost of the more efficient controller
that Beech used. The turbos were the same.
I would think that the most efficient setup would be the low compression engine combined
with a ”Rajay” style manual waste gate controller. The next best would seem to be the
manual controller used with a normal compression engine as that wouldn’t require any
additional boost to get full takeoff power and it would not have the loss associated with
the high upper deck pressure.
The Beech system seems pretty good but it is VERY expensive and can be a bear to
maintain.
When I have asked Van about using a manual controller his comment was that they
wanted to make the system ”idiot proof”. I really don’t think we want idiots flying the
airplane.
I think you already know that I feel your injectors go right along with tip tanks as
eqiupment that I can’t figure out why everbody doesn’t have. They work great!
Always enjoy your comments.
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970809 135918 msg01511.tex]

800
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.14. EQUIP-TURBO

Turbonormalizer
Sun, 27 Feb 2000 14:35:40

In a message dated 2/27/00 1:00:52 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

The TN is somewhat more complex?

If by TN you are referring to a TurboNormalizer, that term refers to the idea of never
boosting the engine above the manifold pressure that it would get from ambient pressures
at sea level.
The Beech and the Cessna factory setup is not really a Turbo Normalizer.
The Turbo Flite and the one currently offered by George Braly are turbo normalizers
as was/is the RAY JAY.
Both Beech and Cessna have used a Continental engine that had a lower compression ra-
tio and was ”Boosted” by the supercharger to bring the horsepower back up to the power
that would have been available with the compression ratio normally used. That would
be considered a supercharged engine. It was generally referred to as Turbo Supercharged
to differentiate from gear driven supercharged engines. Remember the designations of
TSO and GSO on various engines?
My recollection is that limiting manifold pressure was in the range of 32 to 34 inches to
get the normal rated power out of the Turbo Supercharged Continental engines used by
Cessna and Beech.
Turbo normalizing can be done by any of several methods, the one used by TurboFlite
was the same as that used by Cessna. Ray Jay installations were primarily manual waste
gates though they did some work with automatic devices.
The Piper Twin Comanche was one of the airplanes that had the manual waste gates.
I believe the Mooney used the manual waste gate for turbo normalizing as well.
The manual waste gate is the simplest of all and the one used by Beech is supposedly
the most complicated and the most expensive.
Does that help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000227 143540 msg03730.tex]

801
4.14. EQUIP-TURBO CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Turbonormalizer and IO-470

Sat, 27 May 2000 18:17:33

In a message dated 5/27/00 6:30:52 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

But, putting a turbo on my 470 to get the advantages of higher and faster
flight would be possible, maybe even this year or next.

Good Evening Eric,

Since things seem to be a little slow today, I just thought I would stir up the Rajay
controversy a little. I do believe it is approved for your airplane.
I don’t have any idea whether or not the Rajay is available any other way other than used
and I don’t think it is anywhere near as elegant a unit as the one George is putting out,
but my friends who do have them seem quite happy. The idea of a manually controlled
waste gate has always appealed to me and I like the idea of running no higher upper
deck pressure than is actually required. The system was relatively cheap when it was
first available. I don’t know how that would equate to today’s prices, but it should be
substantially cheaper. It sure isn’t built as well as the Tornado Alley unit!
Anybody on this list currently operating a Rajay with manual waste gate?
This is strictly from my old memory bank, no guarantees of any kind, but I seem to
recall that the Beech turbo system went for about 7500 bucks in 1968 or so, the Cessna
unit (which I believe was the same type as the TAT) was around 4000 and the Rajay
was under 3000.
Beech claimed that theirs was more expensive because it used a fancier controller which
allowed it to use no higher upper deck pressure than was required for the mission at
hand. The Cessna unit was automatic, but had a high upper deck at all times and was
therefore less efficient and the RAJAY was purely manual, most efficient of all, but took
some care to keep from overboosting the engine. The only one of the three that I ever
flew was the Beech V35ATC. It was OK, but it sure burned a lot of fuel the way we
were operating it. It was very hard to keep it properly cooled.
How about some comment from those who have used the Rajay, Cessna and factory
Beech turbos?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000527 181733 msg08796.tex]

802
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.14. EQUIP-TURBO

Usefulness
Sun, 1 Nov 1998 15:16:12

In a message dated 11/1/98 10:52:53 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

This brings up an interesting subject. How useful is turbo(normalized)

charging for weather avoidance?

Having a supercharged or ”altitude” engine is always nice. It does get you up to alti-
tudes where detouring weather is a little easier. I always felt that the move from the
unpressurized DC-3 and DC-4 up the altitudes flown with the pressurized DC-6/7 and
the Convair 340s was the biggest improvement we had in the airline business while I was
involved.
The Jets were a thrill to fly and they put us in position to finally make a profit, but
the ability to fly at fifteen to twenty thousand feet on a regular basis was operationally
more significant. You can generally get above the low clouds and form a better visual
picture of what is out there. In many cases, the narrowest (and most violent) part of
the storm is at those in-between altitudes and that makes it easier to detour.
Turbocharging on the Bonanza adds tremendously to the cost and makes the engine
much harder to work on. It also weighs about the same as 13 gallons of fuel. My
experience with a supercharged Bonanza is limited, but I have decided for my type of
flying and my pocket book that it is not currently a viable option.
It would sure be nice to have the performance it gives and if you can afford it, why not?
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19981101 151612 msg06565.tex]

803
4.14. EQUIP-TURBO CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Usefulness
Sat, 26 Feb 2000 13:08:59

In a message dated 2/26/00 10:58:24 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Wouldn’t you end up about two thirds of the way up into the yellow arc,
at cruise?

Good Morning Eric,

That obviously depends on where you cruise it!
My use of an airplane is a lot different from yours. While I always like to get the most
speed practical from any certain amount of fuel, I don’t like to cruise an airframe a long
way above it’s optimum efficiency regime. I know you want to go fast and that is fine,
it just isn’t my primary goal. I rarely cruise at an indicated above 150 knots and at ten
thousand I am normally at 140 or less.
Any airplane that I own or fly, I try to fly at the speeds and weights that are approved
for that airframe.
For the normally aspirated Bonanza, eight to ten thousand feet seems to be a nice
cruising altitude.
With the 550, I can get about 150 knots IAS on 12 GPH or less at ten thousand feet
when my airplane is at weights equivalent to yours. I don’t have a manual for your
airplane handy, but as I recall, that is still below the yellow line is it not?
The trouble is that my airplane is only that light when I am solo and about out of fuel!
Your airplane and mine will have approximately the same performance when flown at
the same weights and utilizing the same power, but mine is always going to be heavier
hauling the same load.
The primary advantage to me of having an early airframe with the 550 would be the
increase in takeoff performance and the rate of climb. That is purely a function of
airframe weight.
My experience with factory Turboed airplanes has been poor. They burned too much
fuel and tended to be doggy performers at the lower altitudes. I believe that the tur-
bonormalized airplanes also suffer a loss in performance below three thousand feet or
so, and they do have to carry an extra sixty or so pounds of equipment around all of
the time.
The lighter airframe would make the performance loss at low altitude less noticeable and
the ability to double my operating altitude range would, I feel, be very advantageous
during the icing months. It would also be nice to be able to fly out west during IFR
conditions. I find that the minimum enroute altitudes are too high for my present
airplane in the high mountain areas.

804
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.14. EQUIP-TURBO

I don’t look forward to carrying and sucking on the oxygen either. The weight of that
equipment is another negative.
My purpose in getting a turbonormalized airplane would be to provide my wife and I
a two place airplane that would perform as well as the one we have now down low but
that would add the ability to go the higher altitudes when required. The difference in
speed would be of little or no importance to my operation.
I would love to be able to give it a try!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000226 130859 msg03674.tex]

805
4.14. EQUIP-TURBO CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Wastegate Types
Sun, 27 Feb 2000 13:39:21

In a message dated 2/27/00 11:34:05 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Pls expand on the various wastegates and why you prefer the manual.

Good Afternoon John,

As I said before, my turbocharging knowledge is minimal. I will try to give you my
perception though.
The manual waste gate is cheaper!!
Less to go wrong and less to check and repair.
It does take more care to operate and there is a greater possibility of over stressing the
engine.
The folks who built and recommended the manual waste gate systems claimed that it
was the most efficient.
Beech claimed that theirs was almost as efficient as the manual waste gate and a lot
safer to operate.
Cessna claimed that their was almost as efficient as the others, but a lot cheaper and
easier to keep in adjustment.
The system used by TurboFlite was basically the same as the one used by Cessna. They
build up a pressure in a plenum chamber above that which will be used in the engine
and then use air from that chamber to feed the engine with an automatic controller that
will not allow excessive pressure to be used.
As an example, there might be thirty-two inches in the ”upper deck” from which a
constant 29.6 is fed to the engine when the throttle is wide open.
Another automatic means would be to have controllers which only built the upper deck
pressure to the amount that was to be fed to the engine. I was told that the latter type
is what is used by Beech and they claim it is more efficient. I sure don’t know!
Both types of the automatic controller would close the waste gate enough to build the
pressure required in the upper deck area from where the air is fed to the engine.
With a manual waste gate, the exhaust opening is wide open and hopefully does not
increase the back pressure on the exhaust system at all.
When it is desired that more manifold pressure be developed than is available from
ambient pressures, the waste gate is partially closed which redirects some of the exhaust
air through the turbine which drives a compressor which feeds higher pressure air into
the upper deck and then into the engine.

806
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.14. EQUIP-TURBO

In actual use, you open the throttle in the normal way. After full throttle is applied,
if you want more manifold pressure you adjust the waste gate toward closed until the
manifold pressure you desire shows on the manifold pressure gauge. Eventually you
reach a point where as much exhaust air as is allowed is going through the turbine and
the manifold pressure will begin to fall. That would be the highest altitude at which that
power was available. When you start to descend, you first use the waste gate control
to avoid over boosting the engine. Then when the waste gate is wide open, you switch
over and start to reduce the throttle to control the manifold pressure.
There is also a fixed waste gate system which is used on some of the Piper products
and if you think I know little or nothing about the Cessna and Beech systems, I know
even less about the fixed waste gate! With it you just monitor the manifold pressure
and adjust the throttle accordingly.
The explanation above is just my pilots perception of the equipment. I have never
worked on a turbo charged engine and don’t pretend to have an engineering knowledge
about them. All I have ever done is to push or pull on the levers!
I encourage all of the more knowledgeable folks on the list to give us the correct infor-
mation on the subject.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000227 133921 msg03725.tex]

807
4.14. EQUIP-TURBO CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Weight and CG
Mon, 17 Jan 2000 20:02:13

In a message dated 1/17/00 6:45:55 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I ran the weight and balance numbers for my airplane, and it wasn’t that
hard to keep it in CG, even without the turbo. With the added weight
from the turbonormalizer installation, it was even easier to keep the CG
from being a concern, even with partial fuel.
Chris Shaker

Good Evening Chris,

I believe I noted in one of your earlier messages today that you felt your Turbonormalizer
added some 46 pounds to the weight of your aircraft. I wonder if you ever actually
weighed the installation?
Seems to me I was at a meeting somewhere when the Pagosa Springs contingent made a
statement that their weight data had been wrong on all of the units they had previously
installed. I believe they said that the installation actually amounted to some 65 pounds
additional weight!
Your CG situation might have been even better than you thought, but you might have
been a little over gross!!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000117 200213 msg00966.tex]

808
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.15. EQUIP-VACPUMP

4.15 EQUIP-VACPUMP

809
4.15. EQUIP-VACPUMP CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Air/Oil Separators
Thu, 25 May 2000 18:18:21

In a message dated 5/25/00 5:06:43 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Guess my crankcase breather is not mounted exactly correctly.

Good Afternoon John,

It could also be that your wet vacuum pump is not set up optimally. My local accessory
guru claims that he can set up a wet vacuum pump so that it lasts longer and spews
less oil. He is a wet pump fan and claims that he can set them up so the belly is as dry
as with a dry pump. It is his thought that the bad reputation they currently have for
spitting out oil is caused by the new crop of technicians who don’t know how to service
them properly.
I have a wet pump on my Pacer, though it is not one that he has overhauled, and it
doesn’t make the belly dirty.
I prefer no pneumatic pump at all, but if I have to have one, I’d rather have the dry
pump. When the one on my Pacer fails, it will probably be replaced by a dry one, but
I have owned a lot of airplanes with wet pumps that had no separator and still had a
clean belly.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000525 181821 msg08665.tex]

810
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.15. EQUIP-VACPUMP

Cooling Jacket
Tue, 4 Jan 2000 23:29:35

In a message dated 1/4/00 9:49:12 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob: I have a SigmaTek Vacuum pump (about 300 hours on it), it has
neither a blast tube or a cooling jacket; do you recommend a cooling jacket
(my A&P tells me they are mostly for pressure system pumps (true?)?
Steve

Good Evening Steve,

Seems to me the pump works just as hard sucking as it does blowing! For pressure use,
the pressure the pump works against is controlled by a pressure relief valve. When it is
providing vacuum, it pulls against a vacuum relief valve. How hard it works is dependent
on the number of units it is operating and the condition of those units. The less work
it does, the less heat it develops and the longer it lasts. I would recommend the cooling
sleeve. But I don’t have any great amount of data to support that recommendation.
Happy Skies,
Old Coot Bob
PS If your back seaters note a tail wiggle, you need to practice using your rudder more
and your aileron less! If you had an instructor who told you to fly the Bonanza with
your feet on the floor, he/she gave you bad advice. Coordinated use of the controls is
always the best, but if you are going to use one and not the other, use the rudder only
and not the aileron.
[ARTICLES/20000104 232935 msg00204.tex]

811
4.15. EQUIP-VACPUMP CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

No Pneumatic System?
Thu, 25 May 2000 20:24:12

In a message dated 5/25/00 5:34:39 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I prefer no pneumatic pump at all, but if I have to have one, I’d rather
have the dry pump.
Now you’ve piqued my interests on two counts. Why no vacuum? I recall
that you are migrating to an all electric panel but did not realize it was
due to a dislike of vacuum.

Good Evening John,

I prefer to eliminate the pneumatic system whether it be vacuum or pressure. The
pumps and lines take up a lot of room in the engine compartment and behind the
instrument panel. Electric wires and plugs are easier to work with, lighter and, I think,
more reliable. That is always open for discussion.
It isn’t that I dislike the pneumatics, I just think there are better ways available to do
the job. In 1920, the venturi was a tremendous advance, then some folks wanted to get
their gyros spinning before they were airborne and the vacuum pump was developed. I
think it is time to move to the next level.
As to my preference for the dry pump over the wet, it is lighter and less expensive to
purchase. The reliability meets my requirement if the pump is adequately maintained.
The wet pump might well be cheaper in the long run as it will be replaced less often,
but it will always be heavier and bulkier. If you think it has to have a separator to keep
the belly the way you want it, that adds weight and takes up a lot of room in the engine
compartment.
How many jet transports do you know of that use the pneumatic system for instrument
power?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000525 202412 msg08673.tex]

812
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.15. EQUIP-VACPUMP

No Pneumatic System?
Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:42:17

In a message dated 2/4/01 10:55:48 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

and, Electrical equipment, with the appropriate electron supply, is probably

more reliable than wet or dry pneumatic systems.
Rich

Good Morning Rich,

That is my opinion!
The only reason I still have the pressure pump on my airplane is that it is powering
my attitude gyro which is the stabilization device for my primary roll autopilot. The
manufacturer originally provided an electric horizon as an option, but ceased that due
to excessive failure rates.
When I get that situation resolved, to my satisfaction, the airplane will go all electric!
The S-Tec with it’s TC stabilized roll unit is an option, but I really like the roll unit I
now have and hate to give it up (or spend the money) if I can think of another way. I
hope to find an electric attitude gyro that can feed my current roll autopilot and provide
a satisfactory reliability rate. (Whatever that is!) The pump will then be history.
The reliability of the electrical system is still an unanswered question. There was an
early Turbo Commander equipped with only electric that was lost on takeoff in the SLC
area due to an electrical failure and a Piper Aerostar that went into Lake Michigan
following an electrical failure. After that, most of the operators of all electric small
airplanes added a pneumatic system as a back up.
Very few new designs incorporate any pneumatic system, but their electrical systems
are a lot more sophisticated than what we have in our Bonanzas.
I will probably carry some sort of backup handheld battery powered device when I do
go all electric. At least until I gain a deserved or undeserved confidence in the system.
I was a junior Captain flying the all electric Convair when Northeast airlines had a
complete electrical failure on one which wiped out everything including the emergency
buss and I was operating a small fixed base operation when we had a Beech Musketeer
which encountered a complete and sudden electrical failure. Both of those instances
were due to a dead short of a main power source.
I started to carry a battery powered T&B in my flight bag after the Northeast incident
and carried it until I bid off the Convair.
Just like the engine and the dry air pump, good maintenance should have prevented
both incidents, but things do happen and nothing is perfect.

813
4.15. EQUIP-VACPUMP CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Now, I think I will go fly my single engine, single pneumatic pump, dual alternator
equipped, single pilot airplane and hope nothing goes wrong!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010204 124217 msg02708.tex]

814
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.15. EQUIP-VACPUMP

Vacuum Pump - Wet vs. Dry

Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:51:19

In a message dated 12/14/99 7:24:31 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Is it possible to have a wet pump on the later style engines? I would think
with all the dry pump failures that have resulted in tragic results, people
would take a strong look at the older wet types as a safety item, dirty belly
and all.

Good Afternoon Txgroup,

There have been many failures of both the wet and the dry pumps which have NOT had
”tragic results”!
But! If you want to replace the dry with a wet, this is something that many have done.
It is relatively easy to do and a lot of experts recommend just that.
Alan Peterson, who owns BDS, is almost as opposed to the use of the dry pump as I am
opposed to the use of a turn coordinator!
However, there are those of us who feel the dry pump is a decent, reliable unit, provided
it is given the care required and if it is operated in the manner for which it was designed.
Why add a more expensive and dirty wet pump along with a separator (to keep some
of the oil off the belly) when a lighter and cleaner alternate is available at a lower cost?
The dry pump is not only cheaper and lighter, but it takes up less space in the engine
compartment!
Keep the filters clean, monitor the time in service, watch for signs of increased carbon
in the filters and the dry pump becomes a fine, reliable unit. It is somewhat analogous
to operating your engine, if you disregard signs of impending difficulties, it may let you
down at some inappropriate moment!
I have had failures of both the dry and the wet versions. Most were due to improper
maintenance.
For what it’s worth!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991214 155119 msg11968.tex]

815
4.15. EQUIP-VACPUMP CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Wet Vacuum Pumps and Air/Oil Separators

Wed, 21 Apr 1999 16:31:19

In a message dated 4/15/99 12:35:38 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

You have a dry vacuum pump, but what if you had a wet one like the 470
... wouldn’t you want it then?
I don’t think that would change my opinion, John.

Good Afternoon,
I feel as John Deakin does, I don’t want all of that gooky junk going back in my engine!
As to needing the separator with the ”wet” vacuum pumps, if the pumps are set up
right, they will spit out very little oil.
Terry Norris of Rockford Illinois based Aircraft Systems Inc. is my guru on accessories
and he feels that if the wet pumps are properly setup they will not only not throw off
excessive amounts of oil, but will also last longer. Very likely to at least the engine TBO.
Personally, I would like to dump the whole pneumatic system and go to a full electric
system. Emergency back ups and all! When I get Bill Bainbridge’s standby alternator
approved on my airplane, I’ll start on that project next.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990421 163119 msg03950.tex]

816
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.15. EQUIP-VACPUMP

Wet vs. Dry

Sun, 4 Feb 2001 11:29:32

Good Morning Rich,

In a message dated 2/4/01 7:31:30 AM Central Standard Time, you wrote:

Why did we switch from wet pumps to dry pumps?

Cheaper, lighter, smaller, no oil separator and no oil on the belly.

Why don’t we go back? (at least for vacuum systems)

Some do!

It seems that the track record for wet pumps is pretty good. Only problem
is venting oil, and an oil seperator seems to handle that OK.

True, but they are still more expensive, heavier, bigger (especially if you add the big
BDS separator) and still spit out some oil on the belly. On top of that, they are
not recommended for instrument pressure systems and those are supposedly better at
altitude. (no personal experience on that at all)!

Now we’ve got strong concern about the life of dry pumps (Sigma-tek seem
to be a little better than Airborne)

It has been my experience that the dry pump is rather like the engine, treat it well,
maintain it according to the maintenance manual, replace it when recommended or
when it show signs of distress, whichever comes first, and it’s reliability is acceptable.

and the fix seems to be: ”Put TWO of the questionable products on the
airplane”.

I think the fix is to reduce the reliance on the pneumatic system, be it wet or dry,
vacuum or pressure.
That can be done by various methods. The one I like the best is to go all electric.
By that, though, I mean that the aircraft has to be equipped with a more reliable
electrical system than most Bonanzas have at this time.
However, that is another story!

When I discovered that the V35 I recently purchased had a Garwin WET
pump on it, I said: ”Wow, a bonus!”.

It is an acceptable and well regarded alternate to the dry pump.

Anything else I don’t know about? (concerning this topic, only)

Rich

817
4.15. EQUIP-VACPUMP CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

Probably not!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010204 112932 msg02704.tex]

818
CHAPTER 4. EQUIP 4.16. EQUIP-WXAVOID

4.16 EQUIP-WXAVOID

819
4.16. EQUIP-WXAVOID CHAPTER 4. EQUIP

RADAR Verses Sferics (Stormscope, Strikefinder, etc.)

Sun, 1 Nov 1998 11:00:23

Good Morning Once Again John,

In a message dated 11/1/98 9:49:40 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

BTW, I have no doubt a color display that overlays a moving map GPS
with Strikefinder and radar would be way cool ... but I really can’t afford
such a setup in the foreseeable future.

Bells and whistles are always fun!

I have had the opportunity to utilize a broad spectrum of weather avoidance devices
including Bonanza mounted RADAR systems and both the Stormscope and Strikefinder
units.
My choice considering my finances and the ease of installation along with compactness
and light weight was the Strikefinder.
It would be nice to have both it and RADAR but then again, it would be nice to have
pressurization. Something else that I can’t afford.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19981101 110023 msg06555.tex]

820
Chapter 5

GPS

5.1 GPS-ANTENNA

821
5.1. GPS-ANTENNA CHAPTER 5. GPS

Antenna Location
Tue, 18 Aug 1998 19:42:37

Good Evening Greg Blanck,

In a message dated 98-08-18 19:16:59 EDT, you write:

What have others done for GPS antenna mounting?

I like to put the GPS antenna right on top of the cabin. If you have an airplane that
has the little aft venting cabin vent located there, I would put the GPS antenna right
behind it.
If you still have that big old noisy and inefficient rams horn V on top of the cabin, I
would take that off and mount the GPS where it had been.
Then I would mount blades on the tail for the VOR/ILS/GS reception. They are lower
drag and more efficient.
That leaves you short one comm antenna that was in the vertical portion of that big old
V. I like a bent whip on the belly to replace it.
There is a potential for interference from some of the VHF frequencies that will knock
out the GPS signal and it is advantageous to keep the comm antennas as far away from
the GPS as possible. That interference is more commonly from the face of the box than
from the antenna but you never know for sure till it is tested.
Remember that Mike Smith always said to get everything possible off of the top of the
airplane.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980818 194237 msg04513.tex]

822
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.2. GPS-APPROACH

5.2 GPS-APPROACH

823
5.2. GPS-APPROACH CHAPTER 5. GPS

DME Location Fix

Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:03:38

In a message dated 4/26/99 8:19:56 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Too quiet... I bet it would be tough to get a word in edgewise if this group
gets together in one room...
Glenn

Ralph Requa wrote:

I sent myself a test message too.

Kind of quite around here today.
Cheers, Ralph

Good Morning Glenn and Ralph,

Maybe we are the only ones left!!
In any case, I will mention something that I have been working on for a little over a
year having to do with GPS and see if we get any response.
As has been mentioned many times, the location of DME transmitters associated with
ILS, LOC, SDF or similar approaches has not been available in our IFR GPS database.
To address that problem, the FAA issued guidance on how to utilize a waypoint along the
designated approach course to determine the distance to step-downs, missed approach
points or other fixes associated with such approaches.
That was a wise and helpful thing for them to do, but it would be better still if the
actual location of the DME transmitter were in our database so that we might get the
mileage information we desire without having to add and subtract from the published
figures.
I made a suggestion that the position be given a name and published in the database
on whatever page was used for all of the ”Intersection” waypoints.
I am not sure if the title for the repository of such waypoints is called by the same name
in all of the sets, but I think they all list such information by some readily identifiable
means.
The first response I received from officialdom was that there just were not enough five
letter names available and the ones available were too important to be used to aid those
few of us, who do not happen to have DME receivers, execute approaches.
I suggested that since every ILS/LOC associated DME already has an identifier com-
prised of four letters of which the first one is an ”I”, all we had to do is find some five
letter combinations wherein the combination of the chosen letter and the letter ”I” was

824
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.2. GPS-APPROACH

not widely used. This latter suggestion has been endorsed by some, but not all of the
folks at the FAA.
The letters XI are only used in the North American database six times as the first two
letters of an intersection name.
’UI’ and ’II’ are used even less.
Since I like the sound of ”X marks the spot,” I suggested that X be chosen as the letter
to add to the ILS/LOC associated DME identifiers to provide a five letter name which
could then be added to our Intersection/Waypoint list of waypoints so that we might
read the required distance directly.
An example of the usage would be the ILS DME Rwy 35R approach to DEN Interna-
tional.
In order to execute this approach, DME is required since it is in the title of the approach.
The FAA allows us to substitute GPS for this purpose, so if we meet the IFR GPS usage
requirements, we are legal to accept the approach.
If the use of X plus the existing ILS DME identifier to provide a name for the position of
the DME site is approved, all we have to do is find XIDPP in our database and make it
the active waypoint. From then on, one would read the GPS distance and use it in lieu
of the DME distance. Same location, same distance, therefore no addition, subtraction
or calculations required.
The same localizer and DME frequency is used for Denver’s ILS Rwy 17L approach.
Even though DME is not required to utilize that approach, waypoints along the course
are delineated by reference to the associated DME and it is helpful to be able to use the
DME distance for identification of those waypoints. The same transmitter is used for the
DME distance to both 17L and 35R, but the identifier changes when the tower switches
from one to the other, therefore a different identifier is used and I have recommended
that the associated identifier be used in the database to avoid any confusion. If that
were done, the location could be entered by making XIBXP the active waypoint. All of
the mileage’s would then be exactly as published on the chart.
Why do I mention this to the Bonanza group?
Many of us are active instrument pilots and even though we currently have aircraft
equipped with DME, realize that repair or replacement funds might better be spent on
obtaining an IFR GPS. Every increase in utilization of that equipment makes the fiscal
rationalization of purchasing that IFR box a little easier.
I have been working closely with AOPA to implement this suggestion and have been
encouraged by the response of the manufacturers who I have been able to contact.
I am hoping that I might be able to recruit anyone on this forum who may have contacts
with any of the manufacturers of GPS to encourage them to back the inclusion of
ILS/LOC/SDF etc. associated DME transmitter sites as waypoints in our database.

825
5.2. GPS-APPROACH CHAPTER 5. GPS

Whether the letter X or some other letter is used is not material, but hopefully a
consensus can be reached by those involved.
I believe that if we can present a united front to the FAA, we have a good chance of
getting it done.
Questions and comments are eagerly solicited!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990426 120338 msg04024.tex]

826
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.2. GPS-APPROACH

GPS/NDB Approaches
Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:08:08

In a message dated 10/2/00 1:38:47 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

[email protected] wrote:
It’s clearly illegal to fly the approach.
That’s the way I’ve been leaning, and why I asked the question. Thanks
for confirming my thoughts with your opinion!
tt

Good Afternoon Once Again Tom and Mike,

Since you, Mike, have such a strong opinion as to the legality of shooting the approach,
I feel I must comment further.
There are a plethora of NDB approaches where the NDB facility has died and where the
approach is being kept active by the FAA for just the reason herein discussed.
Since the overlay approach was approved based on the NDB criteria, they can let the ap-
proach remain active. It may then be used by folks who have the proper GPS equipment.
Under the criteria for an overlay Phase Three approach, there is no requirement that
the underlying approach equipment be available and no requirement that the aircraft be
equipped with equipment to use the underlying approach or any other approach at that
airport. The Phase three approach is just as legal as any other approach ever approved.
Flight checking would be required at the time intervals that meet the criteria for the
underlying approach with a Phase Three GPS overlay, whatever those requirements are.
Should flight checking find that the obstacle clear zone has been violated, the minima
could be raised or the approach may be abandoned. If the NDB is out of service when
the flight check is conducted, that would be noted and the only check made would be
of the GPS overlay and the obstacle field. Should the NDB be placed back in service, it
may or may not require an additional flight check. It depends, but I know not on what!
A standalone GPS or VOLPE style RNAV approach requires that a new obstacle survey
be made of the entire area so that the different, new, criteria can be applied. That is an
expensive, primarily ground based, survey and is usually paid for by local authorities.
After the survey is conducted, the approach is created and flight checked by the FAA.
The approach is then published for our use. It is a long and costly process. By leaving the
overlay Phase Three approach in place, even though the underlying approach equipment
has failed, it supplies us with a legal means of utilizing the IFR system to attain access
to that airport.
I applaud the FAA for being so bright as to think of doing it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob

827
5.2. GPS-APPROACH CHAPTER 5. GPS

[ARTICLES/20001002 160808 msg14339.tex]

828
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.2. GPS-APPROACH

GPS Stuff, RNAV Approach Plates

Fri, 4 Aug 2000 16:35:14

Good Afternoon All,

The following information was presented on another forum which I frequent. It was
sent by a Mr. Curt Keedy who, I believe, works for the FAA. This is sent without his
permission, but it was on a public forum so I hope it is OK to send!
The information is very close to my understanding of the current status of the approach
charts. Since they are so new, a lot of problems have surfaced and I would expect some
changes to be made.
Hope you find it of interest.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
COPY————————————————–
I will try to respond to the several questions I have received.
First, I am sure you are all aware of the new RNAV approach chart format. All GLS
(GNSS Landing System, i.e. WAAS), LNAV/VNAV (GPS/WAAS, GPS, DME/DME,
and baro-VNAV), LNAV (GPS or DME/DME) and circling approach minima are con-
tained on the chart. GPS non-precision approaches now published will be converted to
the RNAV format.
The GLS minima pertain to a precision approach with both lateral and vertical guidance
based on GPS/WAAS guidance. The WAAS receiver (or sensor) continually calculates
horizontal and vertical alert limits (HAL and VAL). These calculations are based on
the accuracy requirements for precision approach. Maintaining the accuracy is based on
healthy satellites in view, satellite geometry, and interference.
Indications from the receiver are similar to an ILS. If the VAL cannot be met, the vertical
guidance (glideslope) will flag and the vertical cue will go off scale. The same is true for
the horizontal guidance.
Most WAAS receivers will also utilize baro-VNAV. When the VAL is not satisfied,
the receiver will automatically shift to baro-VNAV. This will be announced on the
receiver/FMS and the crew will fly the approach to the LNAV/VNAV minima. If baro-
VNAV is not available on the aircraft, the approach minima used will be LNAV.
In addition, WAAS receivers also calculate projected alert limits based on where the
satellites will be in reference to the aircraft position. If the alert limit cannot be
maintained throughout the procedure, the approach minima level will be enunciated
(LNAV/VNAV or LNAV). This is an extension of the Receiver Autonomous Integrity
Monitoring (RAIM) built into all TSO’d GPS receivers.

829
5.2. GPS-APPROACH CHAPTER 5. GPS

FMS equipped aircraft with multiple sensors adds more opportunity. Mainly for LNAV.
LNAV can be based on GPS/WAAS, GPS, or DME/DME. The FMS will make the
decision which system to use based on required accuracy levels. The new name for these
accuracy levels is RNP.
Also, in the Pilot Briefing Information blocks of the new approach charts (upper left-
hand corner) you will see several types of restrictions. One the a temperature limit for
baro-VNAV use. Other information may include authorization for DME/DME and may
further identify specific DMEs that must be available.
All runways served by GPS and GPS/WAAS will (or have been) surveyed to WGS-84
standards.
The good news is that the GPS Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) will not be
included on these approaches charts – they will be published separately.
Clear as mud but it covers the ground!!
Curt
[ARTICLES/20000804 163514 msg11739.tex]

830
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.2. GPS-APPROACH

IFR GPS Desirability

Tue, 16 May 2000 22:09:05

In a message dated 5/16/00 7:32:35 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

So now I am thinking I will take my 6 g’s and buy a Gamin 295, mount it
where I was going to put the 155, and get a stormoscope with the change.
I have an area 4” by 6.5” to put a moving map GPS – is there something
better than a 295?
Mike McGahan

Good Evening Mike, (And John)

The big thing is whether or not you have a need for an IFR approved GPS.
If your IFR flying is primarily enroute and you only shoot approaches either at big
airports with lots of different approaches or don’t shoot low approaches at all, the 295
is fine. I use one as a moving map and as a back up to my panel mount in case of an
electrical failure.
However, if Grass Valley, California is one of your common destinations and you like to
be able to arrive there when the weather is down, the IFR GPS box can be a big deal!
The minima for a VOR approach to O17 is one and a quarter mile for those who operate
at or below 90 knots on the approach. For those who prefer to be above ninety but below
120, the minimum required visibility is one and one half mile. The MDA in either case
is 1128 feet above the ground.
Should you happen to be equipped with an IFR GPS, the minimum required visibility is
one mile for aircraft as fast as 140 knots and the MDA is 272 feet AG. That’s a difference
of 856 feet.
As always, it depends!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000516 220905 msg08248.tex]

831
5.2. GPS-APPROACH CHAPTER 5. GPS

IFR GPS Desirability

Wed, 17 May 2000 12:11:23

In a message dated 5/17/00 10:38:29 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Old Bob, is this a typical difference between non-precision VOR or VOR/DME

and GPS approaches? This seems a bit extreme and I had not noticed such
differences across the board.

Good Morning John,

That is definitely NOT typical!
I chose Grass Valley because it is the most glaring example of which I am aware.
I suppose I could have mentioned that there are a large number of airports that have
NO other approach than the GPS. That may be even more important than having lower
minima. Without any approach, an airport is not easily accessed via the IFR system.
In my own case, one of my daughters lives near Dover, Delaware. The airport which
serves GA for that area has minima for the VOR approach of one mile visibility and an
MDA of 465 feet AG. There is a GPS to each end of the runway. One direction has an
MDA of 404 AG and the other direction allows 385 feet. That lower MDA has allowed
me to complete an approach on several occasions when I would have missed with only
a VOR. Eighty feet can make a big difference.
For me an IFR approved GPS makes financial sense. If you don’t shoot low approaches,
it is a totally unnecessary expense.
While most GPS approaches that are drawn to a runway that has some other type
of Non Precision Approach do have lower minima than the approach they replace or
supplement, that is not true in all cases.
I am currently working with the folks at AOPA on a project to locate and bring to the
attention of the FAA approaches which do not seem to have taken maximum advantage
of the TERPS in construction of the GPS procedure.
The FAA has been very receptive to our concern, but not all of the discrepancies are
being rectified. There are number of policy decisions that have been made concerning the
application of the new RNAV style of approach which are detrimental to full utilization
of the applicable TERPS.
I urge all instrument pilots to actively monitor the construction of approaches at their
local airport. If it seems that the FAA boys are drawing the approaches less aggressively
than TERPS allows, don’t contact the local FEDs! Bring it to the attention of the folks
at AOPA.
Happy Skies,

832
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.2. GPS-APPROACH

Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000517 121123 msg08266.tex]

833
5.2. GPS-APPROACH CHAPTER 5. GPS

IFR GPS Desirability

Sat, 26 Aug 2000 14:23:59

In a message dated 8/26/00 12:12:34 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

”There are a ”large number” of airports where the only approach approved
is a GPS approach. No GPS, no approach”.
Seems, in fact, you’ll find GPS overlays now coming on line coinciding with
many small airport approaches. Are you saying non-precision, VOR, ADF,
etc approaches will be deleted in favor of GPS? I doubt it - for years at
least.

Good Afternoon Ron,

Actually there are a large number of airports where the ONLY approach is a standalone
GPS or one of the new VOLPE format RNAV approaches which is approved for GPS
or an RNP-0.3 FMS LNAV approach and no other.
I have never counted the actual number, but I would say it is at least one hundred in
the lower 48.
The overlay program has been out of business for over a year, maybe closer to two.
You may be seeing some new Jeppesen plates which are just getting around to listing
the overlay, but that is because they haven’t been reprinted recently and the overlay
approval was listed in the Terminal Procedures Section on pages US-1 through US-5
under the heading ’Approved Phase Three GPS Approaches’.
I have been encouraging the FAA to reinstate the overlay program to at least place an
overlay on any NDB approach when that is the only approach available at that individual
airport. So far, my request has fallen on deaf ears, but I am still trying!
I doubt if the VOR and NDB system will be replaced anytime soon, but I would not buy
an ADF today unless I were planning extensive flight outside the contiguous 48 states.
The GPS will do everything the ADF can do except shoot a non overlaid NDB approach
and it will also do everything that can be done with a DME. An IFR approved GPS is a
lot cheaper than the ADF and DME combined. The only drawback of which I am aware
is the cost of the updates. That is a chicken and egg thing, the price won’t be reduced
substantially until there are more users and it appears that there won’t be more users
until the price comes down!!

Must admit, I’m ignorant to see your concern about GPS minima being an
issue with non-precision MDA’s. Whats ”substantially lower minima”? Is
100’ feet that important? Or, is this another issue of political correctness
safety?

Well, I do think 100 feet is important! The nonprecision MDA is delineated in 20 foot
increments. If twenty feet gets me in and twenty feet higher does not, then that twenty

834
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.2. GPS-APPROACH

feet is important. The FAA has a policy that they will not add a step down fix unless
the step down will provide at least a sixty foot lower MDA. I think they should add the
step down fix if it will provide at least a twenty foot lower MDA. But, as I said before,
not everyone flies to the minima and, unfortunately, not everyone abides by the rules.
Some folks violate the minima we have. I don’t like to see that happen, but I do want
to see the approach built to provide the lowest safe minima consistent with the current
TERPS.
The minima provided by GPS is sometimes no lower than that of other nonprecision
approaches. In some cases it is even higher! But there are a few cases where I think
even you would admit the difference is substantial.
My favorite example is Grass Valley, California, O17. It has a VOR or GPS A to circling
minima with a MDA of 1128 feet AG and 1 & 1/4 mile visibility. The standalone GPS to
O17 is a GPS to Rwy 7 with an MDA of 272 feet AG. It only requires one mile visibility
to execute.
I am sure I can find several hundred approaches in the lower 48 that have one hundred
or more feet lower minima with the GPS than with the other NPAs they compliment or
replace.
If anyone has the need for regular IFR flight to or from those airports, it can make a
big difference in dispatch reliability.
Incidentally, the basic minima for all non precision approaches is 250 feet above the
controlling obstacle. Regardless of the height of the MDA above the airport elevation,
there is something out on that approach that is somewhere between 250 and 269 feet
below the MDA. It is not something to be trifled with, regardless of how high the MDA
may seem.
I like the GPS. It makes all of my approaches smoother, easier and more likely to result
in a safely completed procedure. Several places I frequent have lower minima which
means I can land when other may not. Last week I went to a flyin at Cable Union
Airport in Wisconsin. The MDA for the NDB is 920 feet AG, for the GPS to Runway
36 it is 800 feet AG. I shot the GPS and broke out at about 840 feet.
Now, had I not been equipped with a GPS, I probably would have missed the first
approach, but since I had plenty of fuel, there were good alternates and the conditions
were quite variable, I probably would have stuck around and eventually made it in.
The GPS made it nicer.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000826 142359 msg12617.tex]

835
5.2. GPS-APPROACH CHAPTER 5. GPS

IFR TSO
Tue, 25 Apr 2000 23:22:14

In a message dated 4/25/00 9:27:31 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

I do not understand how the GX60 and the 430 can both be ”TSO 129a
Class A1” and the 430 be advertised as certified for ”approach” and the
GX60 for ”non-precision approaches.”
Help!

Good Evening Will,

The A1 approval is the one that allows approaches. The only approaches approved for
GPS are all non precision. They are overlays of NDB, VOR, VOR DME or VOR DME
RNAV approaches as well as all designated GPS approaches and the ”New Style” RNAV
approaches.
There are no precision GPS approach approvals at this time.
The A2 approval is for enroute and terminal purposes only. That means that you can
use the set to get from town to town and to help find intersections and other locations
enroute and in the terminal area up to the Final Approach Fix, but not for guidance
inside the FAF. You can use the A2 set distance in lieu of DME for any purpose including
all DME requirements on any approach except an MLS. You can also use it in lieu of
any required ADF bearing on any approach and for missed approach guidance but not
for guidance during an NDB approach.
The various uses are spelled out more completely in the AIM.
Does That help? If not, let me know and I will try to expand the explanation.
Specific questions would help!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000425 232214 msg07064.tex]

836
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.2. GPS-APPROACH

New RNAV Approaches

Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:57:32

Good Morning All,

This is something that all instrument pilots, whether GPS equipped or not, should be
concerned about.
I just started to do my 03-00 Jeppesen Revision which has the first of the new RNAV
style approach plates.
The very first one that I came across gave me heartburn!
I am afraid that the problem I was worried about has come to fore.
The airport in question is at Lawrenceville, Illinois. It is listed as the Lawrenceville-
Vincennes International Airport, KLWV.
Four new RNAV approaches were added. That is good and they do have reasonable
minima.
However, the runway 18 approaches have the problem that I was afraid would happen.
There was a VOR to runway 18 with a step down at 4.0 DME that allowed a MDA of
470 feet AG.
It was redrawn with a step down fix at 1.7 DME which allows a MDA of 410 feet AG.
Great!! The person drawing that used good sense and applied the criteria to good
advantage.
Unfortunately, it appears that when the criteria for the new RNAV approach are applied
to the same runway and obstacle environment, it comes out with an LNAV approach
which has a MDA of 510 feet!
The RNAV Rwy 18 LNAV MDA is a full one hundred feet higher than the VOR approach
to the same runway! That is a major decrease in the capability of IFR flight to LWV.
I agree that it will cause no immediate loss to those of us who are equipped with VOR
and GPS as we could shoot the VOR and use our GPS for the distance requirement of
the stepdown fix.
But, does this mean that every place the FAA is drawing a combo RNAV approach,
there could be an old style VOR DME approach with a one hundred foot lower minima?
I rather doubt that is the case, but I do think that this criteria needs to be revisited.
I urge all of you to look closely at what type of minima are built for the LNAV minima
portion of the new RNAV approaches at your airport. Those approaches will be the
ones replacing your VOR, LOC, ADF and other Non Precision Approaches when the
VOR/ADF system is shut down.

837
5.2. GPS-APPROACH CHAPTER 5. GPS

The non-glass cockpit types have a lot to lose if the criteria, as applied, will raise our
minima by that, or possibly a greater, amount.
It will take me a couple of hours to complete the revision and If I find any more horrible
examples, I will try to pass them along!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch.........
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000216 115732 msg03035.tex]

838
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.2. GPS-APPROACH

New RNAV Approaches

Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:05:09

Good Morning All,

I received the message below from another source, but thought some of you might be
interested in my response.
We who fly to and from many small off the beaten path airports are likely to lose
considerable operational capability if the way the approaches are built is not carefully
monitored.
In a message dated 2/25/00 6:35:15 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

Good observation! I would be surprised if the FAA isn’t planning to

downwardly-adjust the RNAV minima once WAAS and/or LAAS is in
place. One would hope this happens before they pull the plug on VOR
and ILS. Surely, this is their plan for ILS replacement. But, what about
non-precision approaches, as you point out?

Good Morning Peter,

Thank you for the kind words!
This may be somewhat repetitious as I don’t remember precisely what I wrote in the
other message.
There is no doubt that present policy has the FAA choosing FAF points and alignments
that will work well with the Constant Angle Non Precision Approach. The LNAV/VNAV
combo and the GLS PA procedures will have a strong similarity to that concept.
In order to have a minima below four hundred feet, there has to be a reasonably clear
obstacle zone associated with the approach.
The glideslope style approach has an advantage where the obstacles are a considerable
distance from the field, but the smaller tunnel where the approach actually is located
will require a lower obstacle field than a non-precision approach built over the same area
that utilizes maximum angles of descent and step down fixes.
They are trying very hard to accommodate all three styles of approaches on the same
planform and that requires compromise.
It seems the compromises thus far have favored the glide slope style of approach at the
expense of the pure non-precision.
If the obstacles in the area are such that 400 feet is going to be the lowest descent minima
associated with the glide slope style approach, the accompanying visibility minima will
be around a mile and a quarter. The visibility requirement is determined by the distance
to the threshold when the airplane is at the MDA on a glide path of around three degrees.

839
5.2. GPS-APPROACH CHAPTER 5. GPS

Not only that, but there will only be a second or two to locate the threshold or other
approved runway environment cues that are required on an approach that uses a DH or
DA. Unless there is some sort of approach lighting, spotting the required cues in that
small amount of time with the actual weather right at the limits will be unlikely.
A light wing loaded, maneuverable airplane, such as a Cessna 182, Bonanza or DC-3,
does very well at the older style of non precision approach. Rates of descent exceeding
400 feet per mile are not difficult, if properly planned for, which makes the minima
of one mile visibility practical for a non-precision approach with MDAs of five or six
hundred feet, even higher for part 91 operators, depending on the runway length and
markings.
When a circling approach is considered, minima of one mile visibility and MDAs of eight
hundred to a thousand feet become very practical. All three of the airplanes listed above
can comfortably fly a downwind at way less than a mile from the field. A descent can
legally be started on the downwind leg for a normal approach and landing, if obstacles
permit, without straying outside of the minimum visibility zone of one mile.
Small and/or remote airfields which are unlikely to qualify for extensive obstacle removal
programs, sophisticated approach lighting and expensive runway markings are not likely
to benefit at all from the glide slope style of approach and may even suffer a significant
loss of IFR capability.
I think all of us would prefer a two hundred and a half glideslope style approach with
full approach lighting at our destination, but if that is not financially practical, I would
prefer that the well proven non-precision approach minima originally designed around
the capability of the Douglas DC-3 be retained for the benefit of those aircraft which
are capable of making good use of the provisions!
Once again, thank you for your interest and comments.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob (Bob Siegfried)
[ARTICLES/20000225 130509 msg03620.tex]

840
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.3. GPS-HAD-MISC

5.3 GPS-HAD-MISC

841
5.3. GPS-HAD-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Garmin 295
Sat, 20 May 2000 22:55:27

In a message dated 5/20/00 9:35:03 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Mike - Looking forward to your report on the Colour Skymap. I looked at

it a while back, and I really like the display quality and the ergonomics.
But its 8 channel receiver (vs Garmin 12 channel) and lack of approaches
in the database held me back from purchasing it. If your experience is
positive, I’ll have another look.
Best Regards,

Good Evening Bob,

I am not taking a stand on the relative merits of the 295 against the Skymap as I have
never seen a Skymap, But! The map on the 295 is a little small for me. I have to put
on my reading glasses to see detail and the unit does need to be shaded from bright
sunlight. Over all, In think the Garmin is a great unit and does the job for which I
purchased it adequately. For my old eyes, another half inch in both dimensions would
be a god send!
I would not worry about the difference between a twelve channel and an eight channel
receiver. It is highly unlikely that any noticeable greater accuracy can be attained by a
couple of extra channels.
Once the set has acquired five or six satellites, the accuracy is about as good as it is
going to get. The eight channel one will pick the best eight of the ones that are available
for use and the fringe satellites are unlikely to add anything to the solution.
Picking up twelve channels is a PR ploy.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000520 225527 msg08412.tex]

842
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.4. GPS-HANDHELD

5.4 GPS-HANDHELD

843
5.4. GPS-HANDHELD CHAPTER 5. GPS

Garmin 295
Sun, 30 Jan 2000 11:50:48

In a message dated 1/30/00 9:41:05 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

John,
Please report back and let us know how it works out in bright sunlight.
That would be one of the most important considerations for me.
Also, does it come with a way to mount it on the glareshield?

Good Morning Eric,

Excuse the intrusion, but I did fly my 295 yesterday. It was a bright sunlit day with
snow on the ground. I had the unit mounted on the top of my throw over column and
found no difficulty reading it at any time. There are adjustments for both intensity and
contrast. I didn’t change anything from the default setting while flying, but I did try
the feature later at the kitchen table. It seemed to have quite adequate range. I drove
around for a couple of hours with the 295 in my car on Friday. It wasn’t a real sunny
day, but there was never a time that I felt it was at all hard to read. As with all such
displays, it is best if the observer is looking at it straight on. When I was flying, my
oldest son was in the right seat and we were both able to read it without repositioning
the GPS. It was a little better though, when you were looking at it straight on. I felt
that the view from one side was less critical than the Sandel. I was a little disappointed
in the cross cockpit viewing of that unit. The Sandel can be adjusted to bias the best
view to one side or the other.
As to mounting the 295 on the glare shield. It comes with something they call the
automotive mount as well as a rather large clamping device designed to attach to a
control column or cross bar. That little automotive thing could be mounted on the glare
shield, but unless your airplane is awfully smooth, I think it would wiggle a lot. I used the
automotive mount to fasten it to a small platform that I had previously used for a small
pocket computer which I used for a moving map program. My 295 wiggled excessively
in that position and I think my mount would be stiffer than something mounted on the
glare shield. I have not decided quite what my final fastening will be. The vibration was
distracting. I want it stiffer than the way I had it yesterday. The unit is rather large
for a handheld, yet the screen is smaller than the 195. With my ancient eyes, the screen
is a little small, considerably smaller than the pocket unit I am replacing. Of course,
there is a lot more capability and detail available.
I have some reservation as to the advisability of mounting it on the glare shield. It is
big enough that it would block the view ahead rather dramatically. You could hide a
rather large hunk of traffic in the shadow of the unit!
I have never purchased a piece of computer driven equipment that I found easy to use
and this one is no different.

844
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.4. GPS-HANDHELD

I feel that the Pilots Guide is rather hastily thrown together and it appears to be a quick
adaptation of the one they use for their Street Pilot version.
The packing list contained does not reflect the stuff in the package. The directions for
the aircraft column mount are terrific but the ones for the auto mount are hard to find
and speak of a different mounting pad package than was in my container.
The directions for use tell you how to put it in a simulator mode. I managed to accom-
plish that OK, but I have been unable to locate any directions to tell me how to operate
the unit in that simulator mode!
I learned the most by taking it out in the car and playing with it. It is not too difficult
to make the unit do what is desired after you decide what you want it to do. The biggest
problem is making that decision!
Incidentally, the Street Pilot version looks identical and has a price at the local Sports
Authority store of $699.99.
So far, so good!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000130 115048 msg02070.tex]

845
5.4. GPS-HANDHELD CHAPTER 5. GPS

Garmin 295
Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:36:15

Good Morning All,

John Small sent me a message with the following address concerning a review of the
Garmin GPSMAP 295. It was written by the owner of an electronics shop on the west
coast. I wrote the following reply to John. After finishing it, I thought there might
be others on the list who would find the review and my comments interesting as well,
soooo....
http://www.avionicswest.com/articles/garmins295.html
Good Morning Again John,
That is a nice review. Most of it is factual and similar to what I found.
I did not like the mount that came with the unit. I think it is too big and clunky, but
then, I rather like to make mounts and such!
I did not find the screen difficult to read in bright sunlight, but that might be due to
where mine is located. The night time view is fantastic! Dimming is great!
There is an error in the text though.
While discussing the Status page, he mentions that the unit can be put in either track
up or north up mode. He follows up with a reference to using the map in either mode.
That is not completely correct. Placing the unit in Track up or North up mode from the
Status page affects only the Sky View function of the Status page. It does not change
the orientation of the Map page. To change the orientation of the Map page, you must
go to the Setup for the Map page.
The Map page selection provides one more option as well. From that page you may
select Track up, Course up or North up. The mode selected on the Map page does not
affect the Skyview mode and vice versa.
I also had the unit lock up once. I am not sure what I did to make it lock up, but the
only way I could make it do anything was by removing the batteries.
I am not happy with the lack of a method to supply external power while hooked up to
the computer.
It would be especially nice to have that capability while learning to use the two together.
Even for a normal upload of data from the Map Source to the GPS, the book says it can
take as long as an hour. It took my unit a little over thirty minutes to load the maps
for the Chicago area and the next one west. That eats the power from the batteries in
a hurry!
I should mention that I got five an a half hours out of the first set of batteries. It was

846
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.4. GPS-HANDHELD

starting to get a little flaky though, so I changed them.

The Map Source function is fun to play with, but it would take a lot of $139.95 16 MB
modules to hold enough data for a one day automobile drive. I counted a minimum of
twelve different maps between Chicago and Miami. That was with a fixed course and
if you wanted to provide a little latitude for choosing a slightly different route, it could
easily require 15 or 16 maps. Since each cartridge will hold only two maps, that means
a minimum of eight cartridges. I suppose one could carry a laptop and reload cartridges
enroute, but if you were going to do that, it would be easier to use the lap top with a
GPS feed and forget about the 295!
I also find that I can’t drive and operate the 295 at the same time, but then, I am old
and kinda stupid!
I found another anomaly while flying and using the Map Source with the GPS in Aviation
mode. When I flew close to the edge of the map I had loaded and with a scale of less than
three miles set on the GPS, the area for which I did not have a map showed a crosshatch
instead of ground data. The aviation stuff was still there, but with no ground data.
If I selected a scale of greater than three miles, it was OK and when I flew off the
Map Source map and into the area without a loaded map, it went back to normal 295
presentation even at a scale of two miles or lower.
Over all, I like the unit. I wish the screen were bigger, but if it were a lot bigger, it
might be hard to find a place to put it. I had a pocket computer mounted on my column
before, and it did block a couple of instruments. The 295 doesn’t block anything! I think
the screen area could be doubled and it would still be easy to find a place for.
That’s about it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000214 093615 msg02944.tex]

847
5.4. GPS-HANDHELD CHAPTER 5. GPS

Yoke Mount
Fri, 31 Oct 1997 16:09:15

Hi Dave McGuire,
In a message dated 97-10-31 15:44:45 EST, you write:

I attach the mount to the horizontal ”bar” part of the yoke rather than the
round ”shaft” part that goes into the panel.

I think I would KILL anyone who even suggested mounting anything on the beautiful
shiny horizontal bar part of my control column!!!
Seriously, are you able to do that without marring the finish?
The Autel mount goes right on the little chrome coupling that holds the unit to the
shaft and can be installed or removed with just two screws. Even on a rental airplane
it would not take more than a minute to install or remove and eliminates any chance
of marring or scratching either column. It will not slip and does not rely on friction to
hold it in place.
I would imagine there are others on the market that would fit there also.
Please guys, don’t scratch up these wonderful pieces of equipment!!
Bob
PS – I suppose I should caution anyone who might do as I suggest and remove the screws
on the column to install the GPS mount that it could be construed to be an action which
would require an A&P approval and a log book entry. I don’t think it would, but others
might disagree. In any case, slightly longer screws are used to fasten the mount than
those that hold the column coupling on. If those long screws were to be installed instead
of the original screws after removing the mount, the aileron action could be jammed.
Careful!!!
[ARTICLES/19971031 160915 msg02301.tex]

848
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.4. GPS-HANDHELD

Yoke Mount
Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:36:21

In a message dated 12/8/00 1:24:20 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

Questions about the 295 in Bonanzas:

1. How does it mount on the throw-over yoke? I’ve got an old Garmin 90
and it’s attached to the arm, close to the aileron trim knob.
2. In whatever position you have it, does it work with the built-in antenna
or do you need an external one on the glareshield?
Thanks!
...doug

Good Morning Doug,

I made a mount that places my 295 right over the center column biased slightly to the
left. I made the mount so that the angle at which the set is mounted is normal to my line
of sight in the up and down plane and it is adjustable from 11 degrees to the left over to
five degree to the right. For normal flight, I have it set for my vision. If the passenger is
interested, I can swing it to the five degree right position and we can both see it. None
of the commercial mounts that I looked at would allow me to set it close enough to the
control yoke so as to keep the 295 out of the way of my view of the instruments and
controls on the instrument panel. There was a photo of my installation on John Small’s
photo website. I don’t know if it is still there or not. Maybe John will let us know?
I use the remote antenna placed on the glare shield right in front of the magnetic compass.
I have not tried it with the antenna mounted on the set, but I wouldn’t think the
coverage would be anywhere near as good as it is with the antenna up on the front of
the glare shield. The 295 normally has about the same number of usable satellites as
does my panel mount IFR approach GPS.
I am very pleased with the 295 except for the size of the picture. Even another eighth of
an inch in each direction would be a big help. The Black and White unit that Garmin
made using the same box had just a little bit bigger screen and it is much easier to
read. The color road version uses the same small screen that we get and it makes a big
difference. Your younger eyes may not notice the difference as much as I do.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001208 093621 msg17395.tex]

849
5.5. GPS-HISTORY CHAPTER 5. GPS

5.5 GPS-HISTORY

850
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.5. GPS-HISTORY

IFR GPS Navigation

Thu, 6 Aug 1998 01:17:04

Good Morning Hal Hammond,

In a message dated 98-08-06 00:34:01 EDT, you write:

The purchase price for an approach-certified IFR GPS isn’t too bad but the
cost of ownership (including the depreciation associated with obsolesence)
is out of sight.

Just a little more comment from an old aviator.

When we were using low frequency ranges for navigation, a radio was available for some
where around fifty bucks which was more than adequate to receive the signals and fly
the ”Beam”. We strung as much wire around the wingtips and fuselage as possible to
get a much signal as possible, made a log book entry and away we went.
There were a lot of screams when it became necessary to install those new fangled
”omnis” in order to fly the airways. Narco came out with the Omnihomer which provided
a handcrank tunable VHF receiver, a VOR converter (No ILS, LOC or GS), and a four
channel VHF transmitter. The cost was an exorbitant $350 or so. By todays inflated
dollar that would be equivalent to around $4200.
I doubt if many today would be willing to go back to the Low Frequency range station
regardless of how much pride we could take in being able to find the airport after a
”True Fade Orientation Procedure”
The cost of moving to the GPS system is nowhere near as big a step up in investment
as it was from the LF to the VOR.
Surely there will be some method found to lower the cost of updates for our data.
It would help tremendously if more were to be sold so that there would be a bigger
market over which to spread the cost.
The benefits of the current TSO C129 sets are really quite impressive and there is
considerable operational flexibility to be gained in addition to the comfort of precise
knowledge of ones position and the extreme accuracy available.
I urge everyone to look the market over and get something that won’t cost an arm and a
leg. Don’t try for the final solution, but try rather to get the minimum cost installation
so that you will be able to get into the new system and help in it’s development.
If you are outfitting an airplane from scratch, the cheapest entry into the system is one
VHF Nav Comm and one IFR Approach Approved GPS. More approaches per dollar
than any other navigational investment.
Try it! You’ll like it!

851
5.5. GPS-HISTORY CHAPTER 5. GPS

Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980806 011704 msg04063.tex]

852
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.6. GPS-IFRFLIGHT

5.6 GPS-IFRFLIGHT

853
5.6. GPS-IFRFLIGHT CHAPTER 5. GPS

”Direct” with VFR GPS

Wed, 29 Apr 1998 17:38:20

Good Evening Dwaine and All

In a message dated 98-04-29 12:57:59 EDT, you write:

I fly with an in panel VFR loran and recently have added a handheld
GPS90 (you might know, just before the GPS92 came out) and fly IFR
direct frequently in what I believe to be a legal manner. I file /A (all that
equipment is IFR approved) and then when enroute I request direct to
where ever and suggest to the controller a heading to fly.

I have been telling my students to file /A but to put the following statement in the
remarks section. ”Aircraft equipped with VFR GPS” or Loran as the case may be.
This was at the suggestion of some air traffic controllers. My friends have been telling
me that the controllers are regularly offering direct to various destinations, VORs and
even intersections. If it is not offered, just state that you have the VFR equipment on
board and you will probably get the routing you want. Works just fine and I have been
assured it is legal! You are still operating on the controllers radar authority.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980429 173820 msg02186.tex]

854
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.6. GPS-IFRFLIGHT

”Direct” with VFR GPS

Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:10:58

In a message dated 12/21/99 9:09:40 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

My GPS state specifically that it is approved for IFR ”En-Route” opera-

tions. Why would it do so if all GPS were approved?

Good Morning Scott,

I don’t think we are disagreeing at all!
I agree that the VFR units are not approved as primary or even supplementary naviga-
tion devices for IFR use in the NAS.
The controller has the authority to accept a flight that files direct planning on main-
taining track via DR. I can’t imagine that many would won’t to do it though!
The reason that I caution everyone who asks for direct flight cooperation from the
controller to tell the truth is so that the controller is not put in the position of being
the fall guy in the event of an incident.
I have discussed this informally with controllers and supervisors at Chicago and Atlanta
centers and have never found one that disagreed with my interpretation or who were
uncomfortable with the procedure. In fact, I can’t remember one who didn’t encourage
the practice!
I am sure there are controllers who don’t want to accept such flights and that is their
right.
As I am sure you remember from your days as a controller, moving traffic is a cooperative
affair based on trust and acceptance of responsibility.
The system is alive, well and growing!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991221 111058 msg12179.tex]

855
5.6. GPS-IFRFLIGHT CHAPTER 5. GPS

”Direct” with VFR GPS

Tue, 21 Dec 1999 17:40:22

In a message dated 12/21/99 3:16:44 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

After that if somebody asked for direct and didn’t have /r as equipment, I
asked um how they were going to get there.

Good Afternoon Scott,

I’m with you! One of the reasons I have written on this subject so often is that I
constantly hear others telling folks how they can trick the controllers into giving them
a direct course. As you know, almost every controller will do everything he/she can to
help if they just are let in on what is going on.
Thanks again,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991221 174022 msg12199.tex]

856
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.6. GPS-IFRFLIGHT

Enroute Navigation
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:38:31

In a message dated 1/22/01 3:35:55 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

A question has come up on GPS in practical IFR applications that I haven’t

seen an answer to. IF a necessary ground based component of an IFR
approach fails, can GPS be substituted for that components indication?
Or is the approach unusable? For this question assume the GPS receiver is
both enroute and approach approved and installed correctly in a certified
aircraft. As an example, use the ILS RY 2 approach to Santa Fe, NM
(SAF), and the failed component being the NDB. The approach requires
ADF.
I realize that one could use the GPS RY 2 approach instead, but the pre-
cision approach would be preferable. I also understand that DOMAN can
be defined by several other cross-checks, if one is already on the approach.
Carter DuBois

Good Afternoon Carter,

Any IFR approved GPS, even one that is only approved for enroute navigational pur-
poses, may be used to substitute for any fix in the US National Airspace System that
is published. Such use may or may not be approved in other countries. I have been
told that Canada either has approved that use or is close to doing so, but haven’t seen
anything official yet.
The GPS may be substituted for a DME any time and at all altitudes.
It may be used in lieu of any ADF for any purpose except to shoot a non overlaid NDB
approach. For that you have to have an ADF.
The only kicker that I know about is that the point which you want to reference either
has to be in the database or there has to be a point in the database that some approved
chart shows as being usable to delineate the waypoint in question.
On the approach in you mention, if DOMAN is in your data base, it may be used in lieu
of the NDB and an ADF is not required. If DOMAN is not in your database, (though I
can’t imagine it not being there) you could use the VOR and DME. If the VOR is out or,
if you don’t have a DME, you could use the VOR location waypoint as the datapoint for
the GPS and the bearing and distance therefrom via the GPS to determine DOMAN.
Lots of possibilities and all legal!
It is all explained in the AIM, Chapter 1, Navigation Aids, Section 1, Air Navigation
Aids, Paragraph 1-1-21, Global Positioning System, Sub paragraph c, Use of GPS for
IFR Domestic Enroute, and Terminal Area Operations, sub paragraph 5.

857
5.6. GPS-IFRFLIGHT CHAPTER 5. GPS

The information was added to the AIM in February of 1999 so any issue newer than
that should have it!
Any more questions, please ask!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010122 173831 msg01478.tex]

858
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.6. GPS-IFRFLIGHT

Enroute Navigation
Mon, 28 Aug 2000 07:36:35

In a message dated 8/28/00 12:02:54 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

So yes, you do need the capability to navigate via NDBs in Alaska. Whether
an IFR GPS can legally provide that capability without an ADF aboard I
don’t know, that’s a regulatory question.
Dave

Good Morning Dave,

Great information! I had no idea there were such differences considering MEAs along
those routes.
There is no question that you could legally fly the NDB airways in the USA National
Airspace System that you have described using an IFR enroute approved GPS. The
VOR airway would be the alternative navigation method. The VORs would have to be
in operation (or a suitable alternative VOR option available) and your aircraft would
have to be equipped to receive the signals.
There is no requirement that an ADF be on board unless there is no other alternative
method of navigation.
There could be a question concerning the legality of your conducting such an operation
if the aircraft you are flying did not have the operational capability to fly the VOR
airway due to icing conditions or performance problems. That is true any time we fly
aircraft which are not approved for flight in known icing and icing is known or forecast.
I think there would be a good argument, based on the MOCAs being so low, that there
would be a good alternative if icing conditions were encountered at the VOR MEAs,
but that would have to be decided at the hearing!
Just as anyone can sue anyone else for anything they want, a FED can take action against
any airman for anything they perceive as a violation. Nothing is cut in stone, but there
are restraints in place that should stop frivolous lawsuits and frivolous violations. Once
again, if no problems are encountered, no action is likely.
While I have no current knowledge of the availability of VOR airways in Northern
Canada, I have been told recently by Canadian authorities that they consider an ADF
to be required when flying the NDB airways in the northern portions of Canada. Based
on my observations many years ago concerning the number of VORs up north, their
position seems reasonable to me! Does anyone have more current information?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000828 073635 msg12697.tex]

859
5.6. GPS-IFRFLIGHT CHAPTER 5. GPS

GPS Direst was ADF

Tue, 21 Dec 1999 12:10:33

In a message dated 12/21/99 10:10:38 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Can anyone find FAR text that states you cannot do this. This informa-
tion came from an A.T.P., CFII, ASMEL, FAA Designated pilot examiner
and FAA Designated CFI examiner. When I asked him to reiterate, he
emphatically assured me it was legal.

Good Morning Dana,

I don’t think there is any regulation which specifically prohibits that use.
There is however, rather complete regulatory guidance as to what is acceptable for
primary and supplementary navigation in the US National Airspace System.
I hope that one of our barristers will chime in on this one as I know I am treading on
dangerous ground, BUT!!
It is my understanding that the FARs are permissive rather than restrictive. Just because
something is not listed does not make it illegal. Nor is it automatically legal!
As we tend to say so often: It Depends.
I would think that if we press the FAA for an interpretation that says a handheld is
authorized as an IFR navigation device provided the flight is conducted under VFR
conditions, we would end up with a restrictive rule that says ”don’t do it.”
Right now it’s use has been accepted by most individuals under the controllers au-
thority. The umbrella of permissiveness that the FARs provide gives room for such an
interpretation.
Don’t push it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS This information is from an old guy with an A.T.P, CFI -RAIG&ME, ASMEL&S
and former FAA Designated pilot examiner.
[ARTICLES/19991221 121033 msg12181.tex]

860
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.6. GPS-IFRFLIGHT

GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME

Sat, 30 Sep 2000 01:45:56

Good Morning All,

As I am sure most of you are aware, GPS has been approved to be used in lieu of ADF
and DME for almost all purposes in the US National Airspace System.
There are numerous airports in the USA, and elsewhere, that have a DME that is
associated solely with a particular localizer or pair of localizers. The location of that
DME unit is not published on any of the charts readily available to we aviators.
When the NOTAM spelling out the method to be used to allow the use of GPS in lieu
of ADF and DME was published, no GA GPS manufacturer had the locations listed on
their datacards.
The FAA, to their great credit, did provide a method whereby another fix along the
same route could be used to determine the required distances along the localizer course.
It is rather cumbersome, but workable.
The AOPA, and others, worked with the FAA and the manufacturers to gain agreement
on a method whereby the location of the localizer associated DME site could be placed
on the datacard.
The FAA agreed that they would go along with anything reasonable which could be
agreed upon by the manufacturers.
AOPA hosted a meeting to that end in the spring of 1999. As of the summer of 1999,
Jeppesen had placed all of those datapoints in their master database. They are now
available for any manufacturer who wants to use them. The DME sites are listed as an
intersection using the same ident as the localizer and the DME broadcast over the air.
Honeywell (King) and Garmin modified their packing software last fall so that the
sites are now available to users of their IFR approved GPS units which have a cur-
rent database.
All you have to do is search for a waypoint with the same ident as the localizer and
DME identification.
As an example, if you are planning an approach to runway 1 at Rockford Illinois, you
would insert the letters IRFD into the IFR GPS. That will come up as an intersection
located at the DME site and distances will be available to use instead of the DME
distance.
I have tried it on the Garmin 530 and the King 90B.
It works great!
I called UPSAT this afternoon to inquire whether or not they would place the information
in their database programs and was assured that it is in the works.

861
5.6. GPS-IFRFLIGHT CHAPTER 5. GPS

Why don’t you who have UPSAT equipment give it a try and let us know if the infor-
mation is available or not?
When Trimble was contacted, I was told that their equipment had the capability of
adding those waypoints, but they doubted if management would approve the expense
of writing the new software program which would be required to place those four letter
identifier waypoints in the Trimble database. It was suggested that I write a letter
requesting that they do so.
I wrote a letter today. It might be helpful if other Trimble GPS users would also make
such a request. I don’t know how much leverage we have, but it won’t hurt to try.
The information is available in the Jeppesen master database. The FAA has bought in
on the concept and all the manufacturer has to do is modify their packing software to
extract those waypoints at the same time as they extract the rest of the intersections
each 28 days.
I am not a computer person, but it doesn’t seem that such a modification should be a
major project!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000930 014556 msg14248.tex]

862
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.6. GPS-IFRFLIGHT

IFR GPS Utility

Tue, 1 Feb 2000 18:19:06

In a message dated 2/1/00 4:18:14 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

But is what’s needed is a larger moving map, like a MFD, and/or an IFR
certified gps? As you are constantly watching the new technology with an
eye toward IFR bang-for-the-buck I would be really interested in what you
may conclude along these lines. I assume you will need to fly with your
295 for several months before reaching an opinion.

Good Evening John,

No, I think I have an opinion right now!
If you are really considering IFR bang for the buck, an IFR GPS is the way to go!
Moving maps are fun, they do aid in situational awareness, but they don’t allow you to
do anything you couldn’t do without them. There are dozens of airports that have only
GPS approaches and others where the minima on the GPS are the lowest available. If
you are not planning on shooting approaches, but are primarily interested in enroute
IFR, all you need is a VOR. The rest of the stuff is just for fun!
It appears that most of the newer IFR GPSs are going to have a moving map whether
you want one or not! Overall sales of IFR approach approved boxes is so slow right now,
that there is very little incentive for the manufacturers to spend the time and money it
takes to get a simple IFR GPS unit approved. There doesn’t seem to be a market for
it. The best selling thing on the block is the rather high end 430. If you are starting
from scratch and need everything, it is not priced all that bad.
If you already have all the things you need except IFR GPS, I would imagine the only
economical way to gain IFR GPS capability would be by buying used equipment. I
haven’t priced the market recently, but I doubt if there are any new full approach
approved boxes that could be installed for less than five grand and I am not sure that
would cover everything.
There just isn’t any way of comparing an IFR capable unit to a non IFR moving map!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000201 181906 msg02270.tex]

863
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

5.7 GPS-MISC

864
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

Annunciator
Fri, 28 Apr 2000 21:48:05

In a message dated 4/28/00 4:45:02 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Now can you stand one more question? Can you provide a perspective on
the little annunciator/switch panel? I think this is required with all GPS’s
except the Garmin 430.? Are there any conditions under which it can be
eliminated? What if a CDI is dedicated to the GPS and not switched?

Good Evening Bob,

If you have a dedicated resolver and CDI, there is no reason for switching. If you have
a resolverless GPS and have a dedicated CDI there is no need for switching.
Almost all of the sets will require some sort of annunciator device. The 430 has them
built into the unit.
Mid Continent has an instrument which contains the required annunciators, a dedicated
CDI and a To From indicator for something around eight hundred bucks the last time
I checked.
I used my existing HSI for the CDI and added a switching arrangement to change it
over from indicating for my KNS-80 to the GPS. I then installed four little lights, which
cost about ten bucks a piece, to serve as the annunciators. I added a zener to set them
up for dimming and the whole setup cost me less than a hundred bucks.
The Trimble has the annunciators on the panel unit and I think they could be used if
the panel unit was placed in the pilots normal line of sight and the FEDs were pressed
a little. Mine was an early approval, the first one after the factory as far as I know, so
we didn’t argue too much.
Very little labor involved as well.
Things can be done economically if there is a desire to do so.
If John Small still has my instrument panel available on his picture board, you can see
the lights in the upper right corner of my floating panel.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000428 214805 msg07261.tex]

865
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Barometric Data Input

Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:24:41

In a message dated 4/6/00 10:54:26 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Yes, most encoding altimeters have the output RS-232 stuff for the IFR
GPSs’, I think. I do know that MOST of the cheap blind encoders do not
have that output, and that units make by Shadin and a few others are
necessary. I have the GX-50 and leard that from the install. Hope that is
clearer. Ed, N5769K.

Good Afternoon All,

I think this subject has been quite well covered over the last few weeks of my absence,
but I would like to comment.
The IFR Approach Approved GPS units do require a barometric input which is generally
provided by an altitude encoder. It can be, but doesn’t have to be, the same one that
feeds the transponder.
The early sets required that the raw data put out by the encoder in a parallel stream
be converted to a serial format that the GPS set could use.
This was initially handled by the insertion of a serializer in the stream to the GPS.
The output of the altitude encoder is called the gray code and requires eleven wires for
transmission. The stream going to the GPS was serialized so that it could be transmitted
on one wire.
Many manufacturers of encoders added a serializer inside of their encoder box so as to
combine the functions. These combination encoder/serializers sold for 250 to 400 bucks
and were widely used. Shadin went around and bought up the small manufacturers
and then raised the price to eleven hundred dollars or so. Fortunately, most of the
GPS manufacturers realized that this move by Shadin was hurting GPS sales and they
installed serializers within the newer generation IFR GPS receivers. For most of the
boxes, that meant that an extra fifteen pin connector be provided, but it at least nullified
the highway robbery that Shadin had imposed on the industry.
Most current IFR GPS Approach boxes will accept the gray code from any encoder,
even the cheapest, without the requirement for a serializer.
Does that help, or did I just muddy up the waters?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000416 192441 msg06457.tex]

866
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

Certification
Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:57:09

In a message dated 2/1/01 7:06:58 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

Can the GX60 GPS be substituted for a VOR receiver to legally fly VOR
airways?

Good Morning Rich,

GPS is currently authorized only as a supplementary navigation system. It is not ap-
proved as a primary or ”stand alone” method.
The interpretation of that status by the FAA is that you must have some other approved
method of navigation pertinent to the route to be flown on board the aircraft.
You don’t have to look at it, use it or monitor it. You just have to have it aboard so
that it may be used if the GPS unit fails or the satellite system goes out of specification.
The argument has been made that you could use visual navigation as a back up if you
were in severe VFR conditions flying over an area endowed with a plethora of easily
identifiable visual checkpoints.
I don’t think such a position would fly at the hearing!
If you were flying in an area that had a suitable low frequency delineated airway, the
ADF would provide the alternate method of navigation.
In the lower 48, it is my opinion that a VOR receiver would be required, but that is not
stated in then regs.
So, to answer your question:
Sure, you can fly down the airway between waypoints which are located at the same
place as the VOR stations, provided those waypoints are derived from the database of
your IFR enroute (or better) approved box, but you must have another legal navigation
source available as well.
You can even do it with an out of date datacard if you first verify that the location
shown in your database is the current location of the VOR over which you intend to fly
or from which you wish to determine the airway.
The FAA charts work better for the verification process as they have the Lat/Long
available. The Jepp charts do not. (Unless you are using the ”Flight Levels”)
Any help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob

867
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

PS If I wanted to equip a small airplane for IFR flight at the lowest reasonable cost today
consistent with the ability to execute the maximum number of approaches at the greatest
number of airports, I would have one VHF NAV/COMM, one IFR Approach Approved
GPS, one Transponder and carry hand held COMM and GPS backups. Today, it would
probably be a GX-60 for the GPS as that would allow me two full blown COMM units,
but there I go raising the cost!
[ARTICLES/20010201 085709 msg02423.tex]

868
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

Certification
Sat, 3 Feb 2001 00:35:23

In a message dated 2/2/01 10:50:58 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I understood that the annunciator is to tell you when you are operating
your HSI -CDI with the GPS verses the regular VOR. If the AP is hooked
into the HSI - CDI same thing. This was when I was considering the
Garmin GS155.

Good Evening All,

The methods used to comply with AC 90-94 and TSO C129 vary widely. Not only
is there a lot of difference between how the different manufacturers have elected to
satisfy the FEDs, but there are many options for the customer for each manufacturer’s
product. On top of that, many installers take it upon themselves to formulate a plan
for the installation that fits with their idea of how the unit should be installed.
Sooo–, you are probably all correct – for your installation!
One of the real big factors is whether or not the panel unit is located in a position that
is within the area which the FAA describes as within the pilots normal field of vision.
That one is open to all sorts of interpretation.
Somehow, Garmin has managed to get their supervising inspector to agree that the
annunciator function that is located within the confines of the panel unit will meet the
FAA criteria when it is mounted in the common Beech radio stack.
Not all of the installers or all of the FSDO folks agree with the interpretation and
they apply pressure to get additional, or at least different, indicators and annunciators
involved.
The thing to remember when evaluating what is required is that the requirements are
open to as many interpretations as there are people involved.
The basics are that there must be some sort of a CDI and three to five annunciators.
As for the CDI, the one within the panel unit could possibly used, but I don’t know of
anyone who has gotten an approval to do that.
If the CDI is used for both a VOR and a GPS, there needs to be some method of
determining which is being used at any particular time.
Some FSDOs even insist that a relay be installed so that if a localizer frequency is tuned
on the receiver which feeds the CDI for the VOR/ILS function it will show the localizer
function whether the pilot has selected it or not. Most FSDOs realize that such a relay
is not required, but there are a few who still ask for it.
Now for the annunciators.

869
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Most GPS units need somewhere between three and five annunciators to advise the
operator of the status of the GPS unit. There are a plethora of devices to accomplish
this task, but most of the sets have some form of annunciation within the panel mount
unit which will suffice if the unit is placed within the normal scan of the pilot. (Whatever
that is!)
Once again, not all installers and FSDOs like that provision and will try to have it done
their way, whatever that is.
Many installers use a CDI that includes all of the annunciators within the CDI instru-
ment, but there are tons of other possibilities.
Nothing is easy, is it?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010203 003523 msg02609.tex]

870
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

Cost
Thu, 22 Jan 1998 00:26:55

Good Evening ADM,

In a message dated 98-01-21 17:13:53 EST, you write:

Lets stretch the fantasy and look forward to $500.00 panel mount IFR
units.

I think they could easily be built for that price if it weren’t for the problem of FAA
certification. That is not to knock the FEDs!! They do need to be checked and certified,
it’s just that we are such a small market that the certification costs must be spread
among a very small number of customers.
I think the thing we must do is to see that the sets are kept as simple as possible.
No moving maps or external switches or inputs should be required. All of those extra
and generally very desirable features should be extra cost NON approved additions that
therefore do not have to go through the approval process.
Look at the improvements that have been made in the nonapproved handheld maps in
comparison to the lack of improvement in the maps that are available in some of the
IFR approved sets.
The FEDs should only be involved in the check on integrity of the signal and evaluation
of reasonable reliability. All functions concerning user interface and presentation of
information should be the province of the manufacturers to evolve and the purchaser to
decide which system is the best.
Let the market decide!!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried
The gyros do look exciting don’t they! Andrew Corporation had one for a while for a
couple hundred bucks but they have dropped it from their line. It has to come soon,
they are just to neat not to work!
[ARTICLES/19980122 002655 msg00444.tex]

871
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Cost
Sun, 29 Mar 1998 15:01:34

Good Afternoon Graham Haddock

In a message dated 98-03-29 13:33:09 EST, you write:

I have seen an individual satellite send subtle error information that would
cause a GPS receiver without RAIM [Receiver Autonomous Integrity Mon-
itoring] to happily calculate very bad location information. (And I mean
miles in position error.)

What a very well constructed and easy to read explanation of the reason behind RAIM.
In well over one thousand hours of flight with my GPS I have never perceived error
beyond the expected limits, but my next door neighbor had a position that was approx-
imately fifty miles off occur with his set five or six years ago. He checked for adequate
satellites and there appeared to be plenty. He then turned the set off, waited a couple of
minutes and fired it back up. Worked perfectly! It has not had a significant error since.
His unit is an early ARNAV panel mount VFR only set. The situation you comment
upon may well have been his problem.
I agree completely with your comments on the cost of certification.
It is a reasonable assumption that in our present litigous society, no system will be
accepted for IFR navigation that has not gone through the required FAA approval
process. Even if that were an efficient process, and we all know that it is not, the cost
of such approvals must be spread among the persons buying the sets. With the sale
of only some 4000 IFR sets so far, that means that the cost per set has to be rather
high. I know that it is a ”chicken or egg” situation and that lower prices will come
with higher sales and that higher sales will come following lower prices, but how do the
manufacturers stay in business in the meantime?
I recently received a catalog and price list in the mail from Allied SIgnal (it had my
N number on the mailing label so you all probably received it) in which the following
prices were listed.
KR 87 ADF with the cheapest indicator available – $5360.00 KN 64 DME Kings cheapest
and not a very good set – 3280.00
Total – $8640.00
There are at least four and probably many more IFR approved GPS units available
which list for less than $5000.00 and should be able to be easily installed for less than
the price of the cheapest ADF and DME that King has available.
The GPS provides considerably more capability today than the DME and ADF. In
addition to all of the enroute functions and GPS approaches available, it can currently
substitute legally for most IFR DME and ADF uses and will likely be approved by fall

872
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

for all functions.

I have a Trimble TNL 2000 Approach Plus installed in my airplane and I called my local
dealer to ask what he would charge to duplicate my installation. There is a caveat that
costs could rise if antennas had to be moved etc, but that a straight forward installation
could be done for less than $6000.00 and he would still make a decent profit. He would
be willing to make that a gauranteed price following inspection of an individual airplane
and on a clean airplane with no old equipment he might be able to do it for less!
The absolute ”cheapest cost per approach available” today is to buy one VOR/ILS/GS
unit and one IFR approach approved GPS.
The VOR/ILS/GS/DME/ADF system is not cheap!! Things are expensive, but entry
into the IFR system has not been cheap since we folded the low frequency range!
Thanks again for the concise report.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Old GPS lover.
[ARTICLES/19980329 150134 msg01572.tex]

873
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Cost
Sun, 29 Mar 1998 23:02:02

Good Evening Dwaine Moore

In a message dated 98-03-29 22:01:18 EST, you write:

I believe that the GPS manufactures stay in business by selling to the

boating, hiking, automotive industry, military, etc. At a local Dallas chain
electronics store one can buy a no data base GPS for less than $100. The
new handheld Garmin GPS III that lists for $799 and is $699 on the street
with near zero accessories can be had without the aviation data base and
different software for $250 + - and I believe is called the GPS II. Aviation
is now only a small part of the GPS business.

That is precisely the point I was trying to make. If we had the market in the aviation
business that there is in ”boating, hiking, automotive industry, military, etc.”, our costs
would be similar. In some ways I am surprised that the manufacturers are staying with
us as much as they are.
The nicest thing about GPS is the fact that we are a very small minority user. That
is the best assurance we have that the system will stay and evolve. We will have the
advantage of being able to share something instead of having to justify the existence of
a navigation system for our exclusive use.
I would not be surprised if there is as much or more profit to the manufacturer in the
$250 Hiker II, or whatever it is called, as there is in the $699 Pilot III.
The difference in the cost of the handhelds and the IFR approach approved sets is
primarily the cost of FAA certification. When you consider the tiny market for the IFR
sets, it is amazing that the prices are as low as they are, It is possible the ”boating,
hiking, automotive industry, military, etc.” are subsidizing us already!
It can only get better. Magellan has a set selling for under a hundred bucks. There is
nothing that brings the prices down like competition in a high volume business.
There is nothing that will run prices up faster than a requirement for FAA certification
in a low volume product but how many of us want a set that has not been certified to
some integrity standard?
How much do you think Allied Signals ADF would sell for if there was one in every
Chevrolet that came off the line? $100? $500? I’ll bet it would be closer to 100 than
500.
GPS is currently the cheapest IFR equipment available. It will definitely get better and
cheaper.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Old GPS lover

874
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

[ARTICLES/19980329 230202 msg01593.tex]

875
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

DGPS
Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:36:45

Good Morning Ron Davis,

In a message dated 98-03-30 12:15:37 EST, you write:

The FAA could create a network of ground-based Differential GPS stations

(probably in the same huts used for VORs) to build a nationwide network
of free-flight navigation ”relatively cheaply” as far as the FAA budget goes,
and throw away those out of date and expensive-to-maintain VORs.

Sounds interesting, I do believe though, that you will find that the differential justs
reads the clock error in the military system and sends the appropriate correction to
the inflight (or ground based) navigational receiver, thus the FAA ground system you
propose would not be usable without the full satellite configuration and would not be a
stand alone system.
It was hoped that the WAAS system would do much of what you envision at a much
lower cost. Unfortunately, the costs have risen dramatically and development has been
much more difficult than originally thought.
There are currently hundreds of private differential systems in use throughout the coun-
try used primarily by the survey industry. That industry uses GPS along with Glonass
and the military frequency carrier but without the secret code. Since theirs is a non-
dynamic use, they can use averaging techniques and doppler based carrier phase shift
analysis on the military frequency without using the ”secret” code and still get accuracies
in the one or two centimeter range.
The Coast Guard transmits differential corrections for the marine interests on low fre-
quency beacons situated to cover most navigable waters of the USA.. I have never used
the current differentially corrected marine units, but am told that they regularly count
on accuracies in the fifty to one hundred foot range and completely eliminate the dither
of the signal introduced by ”selective availability.”
Our problems in the aviation arena stem from the small size of our market along with
a mandate from congress which tells the FAA that they are responsible to see that we
do not endanger ouselves or the general public with our actions. Thus we have the
certification procedure with a large bureaucracy to regulate a very small segment of the
population.
Trimble was selling early experimental differential units to Petroleum Helicopters for
use on the Texas Towers for $25,000 in 1991. By the time they modified them to meet
FAA mandated redundancy, integrity and warning requirements the price had risen to
$450,000. I wouldn’t be surprised if further development has gotten the price back
down to the $250,000 that you quote and I would imagine that considering the rapid
improvements in electronics, the cost will continue to fall, but the small market and the
need for certification are still tremendous cost problems.

876
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

In the long run the best thing we have going for us is the fact that Global Navigation
Satellite Systems are being embraced by the general public for numerous uses that none
of us thought about.
Whatever system the world chooses, whether it is GPS, Glonass, a combination of both
or something not yet developed, it will be there for our use and we will not be saddled
with the cost of a system designed exclusively for our use.
It may take a while to sort out and I may not live to see it, but the future is bright.
Thoughts and involvement such as you suggest are important and often lead to new
applications. Keep it up!!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980330 133645 msg01631.tex]

877
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME

Mon, 15 Mar 1999 17:26:19

Good Afternoon All,

Last summer on July 16, 1999, the FAA published guidance for the use of GPS in lieu
of ADF and DME.
That information was in the July 16, 1998, edition of the Notices To Airmen, Domes-
tic/International publication.
That document did not have clear instructions on the use of GPS in lieu of DME on
ILS DME approaches where the DME was associated with a localizer and the location
of the DME transmitter was not published.
A correction was published a few days later with an amendment covering that specific
situation. It was inserted in the text as follows:
Original stuff– ”If the fix is identified by a five letter name which is not contained in
the GPS airborne database, or if the fix is not named, you must select the facility
establishing the DME fix or another named DME fix as the active GPS WP.”
New stuff added— ”NOTE- An alternative, until all DME sources are in the database,
is using a named DME fix as the active waypoint to identify unnamed DME fixes on the
same course and from the same DME source as the active waypoint. CAUTION: Pilots
should be extremely careful to ensure that correct distance measurements are used when
utilizing this interim method. It is strongly recommended that pilots review distances
for DME fixing during preflight preparation.”
This information was supposed to have been published in the January revision to the
AIM.
When that did not occur, I started to ask questions. I contacted Norm Lefevre, the
gentleman who wrote it, and asked what happened.
It seems that something had been lost in officialdom and when that was discovered,
another NOTAM was published which includes the new language with the ”Interim”
note.
That NOTAM is in the current edition, published February 25, 1999, and scheduled to
be updated on March 25, 1999. It is in the section devoted to General NOTAMs on page
GEN-3. The interim ”NOTE:” is in the middle of page GEN-4 and printed in italics.
I had never heard of the publication before the guidance was issued last summer and
the publication is not available from the GPO in single copy form. You must subscribe
at a price of $85/year in the USA, higher for other countries. This publication is not
widely available to we mere mortals and therefore, the full import of the use of GPS in
lieu of ADF and DME has not been widely recognized.
I bring this to the attention of this august group as there have been several magazine

878
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

articles recently in which the authors have stated that GPS could not be used for the
distance information required in ILS DME approaches wherein the distance is derived
from a DME associated with the ILS and not a nearby VOR.
While I haven’t read the article myself, I am told that even venerable Jeppesen expert
Jim Terpstra made a statement to that effect!
As you can see from the above quoted ”interim solution or alternative,” such is not the
case!
You can use the GPS for that purpose, provided that a waypoint along the course which
is delineated by the ILS associated DME is available in your database. All that is
required is that you count up or count down from that point in the same manner as
would be done for a VOR DME approach with a GPS overlay.
The above referenced document is the only authoritative source for that information
that I know of. I am told that every FSDO has one available for public inspection (that
is where I found it) and that every Flight Service Station should also have it.
When I contacted my local FSS, the person I talked to could not find it and was unfa-
miliar with the publication.
There are some IFR approved GPSs that do not have all of the waypoints published,
but most of them do.
I have not found an ILS DME approach in the USA NAS that could not be flown using
my IFR approved GPS set to determine the DME distance.
It works and it works well and easily.
If we don’t use it, we may lose it!
Please help to get the word out to all of your friends and acquaintances that an IFR
approved GPS CAN be used for the DME function on an ILS DME approach.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990315 172619 msg02873.tex]

879
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME

Mon, 26 Apr 1999 18:28:59

Good Evening Eric Poole,

Earlier today, I wrote:
If you want to save a little money and still have the capability of executing almost all
of the ILS, LOC, SDF and other such approaches in the country, buy the VHF Nav
Comm and an Enroute approved IFR GPS. That will provide all of the ADF and DME
functions, but will not allow you to execute overlay or standalone GPS approaches.
Then, in a message dated 4/26/99 4:51:52 PM Central Daylight Time, you wrote:

Are you sure?

Yes

I thought that you needed an IFR-approach-certified GPS if you want to

use it in place of ADF/DME.

No. That was originally suggested by some in the FAA, but a study was done by the
Mitre corporation which showed that the accuracy required for enroute purposes was
adequate for the approach purposes requested.
There are two provisions that are different from normal enroute use.
For this use of an enroute approved box, it must be able to be configured to show full
scale deflection of the CDI for a one mile displacement instead of the normal five mile
full scale indication. That requirement is only necessary if a track is to be flown. That is,
if you are going to use the GPS to fly to a missed approach point and hold or something
similar.
If you are using the GPS to determine a bearing from an NDB for a step-down or for
verifying passage over a fix, the one mile CDI width is not required.
In addition, it must have a current datacard installed. Pilot verification of the data is
not allowed as it is with most enroute approvals. That is being worked on and we MAY
get it changed.
Good Question Eric!
Any more comments or suggestions?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990426 182859 msg04041.tex]

880
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME

Tue, 27 Apr 1999 22:23:40

Good Evening John Mills,

In a message dated 4/27/99 7:31:46 PM Central Daylight Time, you wrote:

Bob: 1. Does this mean that an enroute approved GPS can be used in lieu
of ADF where ADF is required for an ILS or other approach? (I have no
ADF.)

Yes, but it must be capable displaying a full scale deflection of the CDI at one mile.
(terminal mode sensitivity) Two mile total width, left to right. It also must have a
current data card, Hopefully we will be able to get this card restriction lifted in the
future.

2. I have an Apollo GX-55 which the literature says is approved for enroute
IFR, but there was no flight testing, and there is no specific logbook entry
that says it can be used for enroute IFR. Would this be usable when ADF
is required for an approach other than ADF?

It needs to be approved for IFR flight. That requires an Approved Airplane Flight
Manual Supplement and certain connections for CDI capability and some annunciators.
A simple flight test is also required. A 337 will have to be prepared for the system
installed in your airplane to be approved for IFR flight. It really isn’t all that difficult,
but it does take some effort.

3. Can I really use it for IFR enroute?

Absolutely! But the same answer as above applies, you have to go through the approval
process for your individual airplane. That problem is being addressed and there is some
hope that the procedure may be simplified.

4. If so what suffix is appropriate for my flight plan? John Mills

I am not sure about this question. When the codes were changed a year or so ago, ”G”
was designated as the proper suffix for GPS aircraft that had approach, terminal and
enroute GPS capability. I know of no code for enroute GPS only. I have been told
that there are some changes that have either recently been published or are soon to be.
I haven’t been able to find anyone who knows for sure what the current situation is,
including a couple of FSS personnel that I asked. The AIM still has the same information
as was posted a year or so ago and the page has a publication date of February 12, 1999.
In the meantime, I would file a suffix as if you had no IFR GPS capability. Just state
in the remarks that you have a VFR or IFR enroute capability as the case may be.
Since that information is not often forwarded to the controller, it doesn’t hurt to let the
controller know your capability when you are switched to his/her frequency. Until you

881
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

get the IFR approval, just tell them that you have a VFR GPS available and after you
get the IFR approval list it as an IFR enroute only GPS.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the FEDs come up with a suffix for the IFR enroute capability
soon.
I would check with the person who installed your unit about getting it approved. If
they are familiar with the procedure, it shouldn’t be too expensive, but if they are new
to the process, it could get rather dear. I would go to someone who has done several
installations before yours.
Some shops have made something of a standard installation that includes some rather
high priced components. Others have made an effort to use twenty dollar indicator lights
instead of 250 dollar switch lights. The low-cost method works just as well as the high
priced spread. Check around carefully!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990427 222340 msg04082.tex]

882
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME

Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:18:35

In a message dated 7/2/99 2:50:45 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Ok, guys like Siegfried....

We all know the Jepp Briefing bulletin neatly outlines when you can use a
GPS to = DME... that is when things are in its database and the GPS is
IFR, etc.
I read the bulletin and it doesn’t cite a FAA source directly.
Do we know what that source is?

Good Morning Bill,

Yes, by golly we do know the source!
It is the Flight Standards folks at the Friendly Aviation Agency.
Led by fellow Bonanza pilot Bob Wright, they wrote an interpretation of the pertinent
rules which was published last summer and expanded upon in February of this year.
I guess those who did not read that fact in the message I sent to this site in March won’t
bother reading this either, but I will quote the previous information anyway.
”That NOTAM is in the current edition, published February 25, 1999, and scheduled to
be updated on March 25, 1999. It is in the section devoted to General NOTAMs on page
GEN-3. The interim ”NOTE:” is in the middle of page GEN-4 and printed in italics.
I had never heard of the publication before the guidance was issued last summer and
the publication is not available from the GPO in single copy form. You must subscribe
at a price of $85/year in the USA, higher for other countries. This publication is not
widely available to we mere mortals and therefore, the full import of the use of GPS in
lieu of ADF and DME has not been widely recognized.
I bring this to the attention of this group as there have been several magazine articles
recently in which the authors have stated that GPS could not be used for the distance
information required in ILS DME approaches wherein the distance is derived from a
DME associated with the ILS and not a nearby VOR.”
This interpretation by the Flight Standards office is very helpful to those of our group
who may not wish to expend their funds on ADF or DME equipment at this time but
who do have the need for operations to airports which require those devices.
An ’enroute only’ GPS will suffice for these purposes, but those units don’t sell for a lot
less than the ones which include approaches and the approach unit will allow access to
hundreds of airports which have no other approach available than the GPS.

883
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

The NOTAM publication mentioned is available for your perusal at all FSDO offices
and should be available at all Flight Service Stations. The information is planned to be
published in 90-94 and in the AIM, but that will take some time to get accomplished.
I hope this is helpful to some. If any of our friendly FSDO folks need more information
than is found in the NOTAM, you might suggest they contact the Flight Standards folks.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990703 101835 msg05692.tex]

884
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME

Thu, 8 Jul 1999 19:50:27

In a message dated 7/8/99 6:20:43 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Just speculating, but perhaps when a DME is co-located with an ILS/LOC

facility? Depending on the GPS, it may not ”know” about the ILS/LOC
facility.

Good Evening Jeb,

That situation is covered by a note on the second page of the NOTAM explaining the
interpretation which allows the use of GPS in lieu of DME. Basically, if the site of the
DME transmitter is not available in the database, you may use another point along the
same course that is in the database, from which to establish the various distances, much
in the same manner as step down fixes are located on a VOR/DME approach with a
GPS overlay.
If you don’t have the NOTAM available, maybe you have Jeppesen Briefing Bulletin
DEN 99-F which was issued 2 APR 99. If you will look on the second page (DEN
99-F2), right hand column, third paragraph from the top you will see the following:
”NOTE: An alternative, until all DME sources are in the database, is using a named
DME fix as the active waypoint to identify unnamed DME fixes on the same course and
from the same DME source as the active waypoint.”
There has also been some question as to whether the GPS was allowed to substitute for
the DME requirement for flight above FL240. That has been answered in the affirmative
and was listed in the early drafts, but the wording was taken out due to the feeling it was
redundant since the first paragraph of the interpretive NOTAM covers the allowance of
the GPS for all such purposes in the US National Airspace System.
Any questions, please let me know!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990708 195027 msg05805.tex]

885
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME

Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:41:26

In a message dated 2/1/01 6:55:18 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I’m kinda reluctant to give up my second VOR if I go with a GX60. In

your (anyone’s) opinion, am I relying on old technology here. If I go with
the GX60 I could dump one ADF receiver plus indicator, one old backup
comm and nav., one loran and be able to move the GX60 up more on the
panel. This would move it more closely into eye sight, as opposed to having
to look down for it.

Good Evening Dana,

The GPS can substitute for the ADF in all cases except for an NDB approach which
does not have an overlay.
There are a few airports around the country whose only IFR approach is a non overlain
NDB approach.
The good folks at the FAA have assured us that they are working hard to get stand
alone GPS or the new RNAV (GPS) approaches approved at all of those fields.
In order to use a GPS as a substitute for the ADF or a DME you do need a current
database.
If you have regular need for the ADF, maybe to shoot some ILS that requires an ADF
or at a field that has only a NDB approach, it might be a good idea to keep it.
There are still some parts of the world where the major airways are established using
NDBs. If you are doing extensive flight outside the lower forty-eight, there might be
more reason to retain the ADF.
If it should die or need extensive repair, I would dump it in favor of the GPS.
If you have a good ADF, I would consider dumping the second VOR and retaining the
ADF. The only advantage that I can see for having a second VOR is so that you can
legally continue IFR flight should your VOR fail. Operationally, the GPS is what you
will use all of the time. The VOR is just there in case the GPS quits or to shoot a
localizer based approach.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010201 204126 msg02480.tex]

886
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

GPS In Lieu of ADF/DME

Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:38:57

In a message dated 3/1/01 9:59:21 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Jerry: Do you know if the IPRC distances are the same as those on the
plates? Steve

Good Morning Steve,

Sorry for interrupting, but the distance derived from the intersection called IPRC is
exactly what my last seventy-five or so messages have been all about!
Jeppesen has placed a waypoint in the database at the location of every localizer asso-
ciated DME transceiver site in the US National Airspace.
Garmin, King/GE and now, UPSAT, have modified their packing software to include
those waypoints in their respective databases.
If you will look up the intersection in your database using the identifier of the localizer
and DME, in this case, IPRC, you will get the waypoint that is co-located with that
DME transceiver site.
Nothing magic, just a simple waypoint. The FAA has approved the use of a GPS distance
in lieu of a DME distance any time that the source of the distance information is in the
database or if there is another waypoint along the same course and derived from the
same point, a distance may be computed to use instead of the published distance.
Obviously, if you set your GPS to a waypoint located at the same point as the localizer
associated DME transceiver, the distances will be identical except for the difference in
slant range. The FAA has determined that the small difference between the slant range
and the horizontal range is not significant and need not be considered in the use of the
information.
The main thing to remember is that the DME transceivers are not necessarily located at
the site of the localizer with which they are associated. The distances published on the
charts for all approaches in the US National Airspace System WILL give the distance
information from the actual DME site, not necessarily the localizer transmitter site.
As long as you are using either the GPS distance to the waypoint called by the same
designation as the DME or the DME itself, you are legal and the distances will be the
same as published on the approach plates!
One example in your area would be Hagerstown. Select IHGR in the same manner that
you select any other intersection and you will have all of the information that will guide
you to the localizer associated DME transceiver site.
Baltimore Martin State has a good example of a DME site that is not located at either
end of the runway and is used with two different approaches. Select either IBQG or

887
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

IMTN and you will be getting a waypoint located at exactly the same point and the
respective distances will be exactly those that are shown on the respective approach
plates.
Give it a try, if your database is current, it should work. If it doesn’t let me know!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010301 113857 msg04959.tex]

888
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

Grey Code Converter

Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:05:16

In a message dated 10/30/00 7:36:22 PM Central Standard Time, Ernie [email protected]

writes:

What is a grey code converter?

Good Evening Ernie,

This may not be a technically correct answer, but for we non-techies, here goes! The
information delivered by most altitude encoders to various boxes in the airplane which
can use that data is in a form which is called grey code. It takes some eleven wires to
deliver it to the units which then decode the data to provide the desired result. One
other method of transmitting the data from the encoder to a GPS is to run the eleven
wires that contain the parallel data into a magic box which will take the information
required by the GPS and turn it into a serial stream of data which can be delivered via
one wire.
That magic box is commonly called a serializer.
Some years ago, many manufacturers built those serializers and they were relatively
cheap. Eleven wires from the encoder to the serializer and then one wire for the output
to the GPS. Pretty neat! Then someone had the brainy thought to make an encoder
which had the serializer contained within the unit. It would still send out the ”grey
code” via the eleven wires to the transponder, or other equipment which required the
full data, but the serializer supplied the simpler data needed by the GPS via one wire.
Most manufacturers sold the unit for a couple of hundred bucks wholesale and everybody
was satisfied.
Shadin was one of the more successful manufacturers of such units and they proceeded
to buy out all other manufacturers of encoders which incorporated the serializer.
Once they had eaten up all of the competition, Shadin raised the price of the unit to
around twelve hundred bucks
That meant that the price of an IFR approved installation increased drastically.
Most of the manufacturers retaliated by including a decoder within the GPS which would
accept the ”greycode” via the eleven wire set up and decode it internally to provide the
data they needed, thus negating the requirement for the unit on which Shadin held a
monopoly and was thereby holding the industry ransom!
The only problem with that approach was that everybody had to add another connector,
usually a fifteen pin Sub D connector, to handle the eleven wires.
If you will look on the back of an early Trimble Approach unit, you will note that there
is only one fifteen pin connector. On the later 2000 Approach Plus boxes, there are two
of those connectors.

889
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Everyone except UPS has made that change, thus eliminating the need for the serial
box for which Shadin was charging usurious prices.
I am not up to date on the current price of encoders containing a serializer or a serializer
by itself.
Any help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001030 210516 msg15509.tex]

890
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

IFR GPS Desirability

Sat, 8 Aug 1998 21:45:43

Good Evening Eric Poole,

In a message dated 98-08-08 17:46:40 EDT, you write:

There is still some access to many such areas, IF you can afford the equiv-
alent of six months’ mortgage on your house to buy your way into the
club.
That’s my point.

This time I don’t think I see your point.

If there was no GPS available would the approach capability be any better?
Can you buy a VOR/ILS/GS comm unit for any less than you can buy a GPS? If you
don’t have an ILS you can’t shoot ILS approaches. No ADF, no ADF approaches. No
DME, No approaches that utilize the DME.
I received a catalog from Allied Signal a couple of months ago and while I can’t locate
it just now, I believe the price for a KX155 was around five grand with glide slope and
indicator. The ADF was close to that price and the DME was around 2500 bucks.
The GPS is the lowest cost method available to execute the greatest number of IFR
approaches.
There is a cost to join the IFR club. As I mentioned a few days ago, the low frequency
range was awful nice for we low income people. It went the way of the dinosaurs and we
had to either pop for a VOR or quit flying instruments. Some how, most of us managed
to find the way to a VOR and eventually even ADFs, ILSs and DMEs when they were
invented.
I was happy flying along with needle ball and airspeed. In 1956 they went and mandated
a full panel with DGs and Horizons. It wasn’t something I wanted but I will admit that
it does make instrument flying a lot simpler than it was before. It did raise the cost of
entering the club. Was it a good move or a bad one?
A simple VOR cost some six to eight times what a LF receiver did and that was without
ILS, Localizer or glide slope. Was dropping the LF and embracing the VOR a good
move or a bad one?
The GPS is cheaper than VOR and it has a lot more capability. If you are championing
low cost flying you should get on the GPS bandwagon. It is by far the most economical
way to go.
If you already have working ADFs and DMEs I would think your access to the system
would be pretty good. It doesn’t seem productive to knock a lower cost alternative just
because you don’t need it.

891
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980808 214543 msg04135.tex]

892
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

IFR GPS Navigation

Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:30:10

Good Afternoon John Small,

In a message dated 10/23/98 12:15:12 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

Frankly, I’m somewhat confused by the ’approved’ issue as I’ve seen many
heated arguments on what’s actually legal or not. The arguments seem
to indicate that a non-approved GPS can be used so long as you have the
minimum equipment to file IFR in the first place. I’ve read the regs on this
and it seems unclear to me there too.

It is really quite straight forward. In order to use a GPS to execute an approach, the
GPS must be IFR approved in the aircraft that is being used. Being IFR capable is not
enough. There must be an individual approval for the individual aircraft. There are
some different rules for experimental, but we will not discuss that here.
In order to identify a fix on an airway, or for any other use directly related to operating
in the IFR system, the unit must have the IFR approval for the individual airplane.
If, however, the only use to be made of the unit is to fly direct courses enroute, then it
has been accepted by the FAA that one may navigate via a VFR only GPS or a VFR
only Loran system.
The flightplan should be filed stating the equipment code based on the legal IFR equip-
ment in the aircraft to be used. The notation ”VFR GPS (or Loran) available” should
be listed in the remarks section. That may not get to the controller so if one asks if
you can proceed direct to any specific point, tell them yes. If they ask what you will
be navigating with, tell them you will be using a VFR GPS or Loran as the case may
be. The clearance will be at the discretion of the controller and based on his authority
to accept such a flight. Don’t file slash ”G” or slash ”I” unless you actually have the
required equipment onboard. Don’t tell a lie, even a small white one. It isn’t necessary.
To use the GPS in lieu of an ADF or DME in the manner approved by the FAA this past
summer, it must have at least an approval in the individual airplane for IFR enroute
and terminal use.
At the current time, the cost of enroute and terminal only sets does not seem to be
much lower than the cost of full enroute, terminal and approach approved units.
The only equipment required to be in the aircraft to operate IFR in the lower forty-eight
is that which is necessary to navigate and communicate in the environment to be flown.
In the lower forty-eight states that is accepted to be one VOR receiver and one 720
channel communication unit.
That would allow you to operate almost everyplace enroute and to execute maybe half
of the approaches published.

893
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Add to that equipment an ILS with glideslope (generally included in most current IFR
VOR navcomm units) along with one IFR approach approved GPS and you could fly
almost every approach there is.
Dual VOR is not required (there are a very few approaches which individually specify
dual VORs but they can generally be flown legally with one VOR and one IFR approach
approved GPS) nor is dual communication capability. No DME nor ADF is required for
most operations. The only place an ADF is required is to execute an NDB approach
which does not have a GPS overlay and there are not very many of those. If you
know of one, speak to the authorities at the airport and if they will request it from the
FAA, an overlay or a standalone GPS with the same or lower minima will probably be
commissioned.
If I were equipping a bare airplane for IFR flight today I would buy one combination
VOR/ILS/GS/COMM unit such as a KX155 or equivalent, one marker beacon receiver
and one TNL2000 Approach Plus GPS or Northstar M3.
I would prefer the Trimble but there is some question as to whether it will be supported
in the future.
The marker beacon might be able to be substituted for by a GPS but I really haven’t
analyzed the approaches with that in mind.
I would then add a hand held GPS as navigation backup and moving map source.
My current choice would be the Garmin 195 due primarily to the large size and ease
of viewing for my ancient eyes. To that I would add a good handheld comm with a
standby external antenna on the airframe. I like the I-Com but there are lots of good
ones around.
While I think the visual presentation on the King moving maps is as good as any, I feel
the price is too high for what you get and the moving map nowhere near as good as those
found in any number of non IFR approved handheld units. I also do not like the resolver
which is required with the King, Garmin and the new Trimble. Apollo has several nice
units but they all require an altitude serializer and that seems rather unnecessary these
days when everyone else has placed the gray code converter within the GPS box.
I probably answered more questions than you asked!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981023 143010 msg06219.tex]

894
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

IFR GPS Utility

Fri, 25 Aug 2000 23:22:16

In a message dated 8/25/00 9:56:04 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

As a technology stopgap measure, I find the Garmin 295 an impressive

color moving map. For a relatively low price it certainly expands my old
IFR onboard equipment to the point that I’ll wait for new developments
rather than piecemealing units/upgrades/panel.
Whats your opinion?

Good Evening Ron,

All of your points are well taken, but the most important one is that individual needs
should be the deciding factor.
If you do operate in a venue that includes a fair amount of IFR flying to relatively low
minima, the IFR approved GPS may well be worth the money required to obtain it.
There are a large number of airports where the only approach approved is a GPS ap-
proach. No GPS, no approach. If you are based at such a field or have occasion to
operate to that field often, it may fit your style of flying. However, if you are based
somewhere that has an ILS and most of your flying is to an airport with an ILS, the
GPS has little use.
There are many fields where the GPS minima is substantially lower than any other
approach approved at that field. But if you don’t fly low approaches, who needs it?
If you are equipping an airplane from scratch and don’t want to buy used equipment,
you can buy one VHF NavComm and one IFR GPS and gain more IFR capability than
with any other expenditure of dollars.
As always, IT DEPENDS!
The vast majority of pilots flying Bonanzas can get by very well with one VOR, one
transmitter, one transponder and a handheld GPS. Even a one hundred dollar GPS from
K-Mart will do the trick. You don’t need an ILS, a glide slope, a Loran, an RNAV, a
Strikefinder or anything else to do the type of flying that most of us do.
That minimum equipment will likely allow you to operate at least 95 percent of the time
that the best equipped airplane in the country could operate. Maybe even 99 percent
as much!
Every little improvement in operating capability carries a price tag, the lower the minima
and the more sophisticated the equipment, the higher the cost per foot of improvement.
The one hundred dollar GPS from K-Mart is as accurate as your Garmin 295. It just
doesn’t have as many toys to play with!

895
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000825 232216 msg12589.tex]

896
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

IFR Installation
Tue, 23 May 2000 19:17:20

In a message dated 5/23/00 1:00:21 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I believe it is but you will need the annunciator panel which indicates what
source your navigation is comming from be it nav. rec. or GPS.

Good Evening All,

Perhaps a little rehash of what is required for IFR certification of an IFR approvable
set would help.
There must be a Course Deviation Indicator of some type located in the pilots direct view
forward without undue squirming and/or leaning from his/her normal seated position.
There is nothing that says the one contained in the panel unit cannot be used, it says
that the panel unit CDI is not likely to be approved.
I know of no one who has obtained an approval for that thus far, but it could be done.
Right now it appears most practical to have a CDI on the primary instrument panel
which can display the course functions. This can be an instrument which is used for
other CDI functions as well, but if it is multifunctional, there must be a device which will
advise the operator of what type information is being presented. Early in the program,
some of the FAA inspectors were requiring that any multifunctional indicator which was
also used as the primary VHF navigation indicator had to have a relay installed which
would automatically switch the CDI to indicate localizer deviations any time a localizer
frequency was selected on the primary navigation radio receiver. That is definitely not
required!
If the CDI is dedicated to the GPS and has no alternate function, no annunciation (other
than labeling) of it’s indication is required.
There are indicator lights or annunciators on all of the manufacturers panel mount GPS
sets which tell the operator what is happening. Those must also be in the pilots direct
line of sight. Since most of the panel mounts are not in the pilots direct line of sight,
most installations have some type of indicator lights or annunciators mounted on the
primary instrument panel. The number of required devices varies from three to five
depending on the set.
The GARMIN 430 is the only set that I am aware of that has a blanket approval
recommendation to accept the annunciators in the panel unit as adequate regardless of
where the unit is installed.
Mid Continent makes a number of units which will provide switching and annunciation
for almost any combination you can think of.
If you are installing a set which requires the heading to be input from the primary panel,

897
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

a resolver will be required.

If you do not need a resolver (the Apollo does not) and have the panel space, the
simplest and probably easiest installation to get approved would be to buy one of the
Mid Continent units which has the CDI, To/From Flag, Master Warning Indication and
all required annunciators mounted in one two and a quarter inch instrument.
The installation and approval procedure is not all that difficult, but there are lot’s and
lot’s of options, not all of which are adequately presented by some of the installation
shops.
Hope that helps!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/20000523 191720 msg08528.tex]

898
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

Jamming
Wed, 21 Jan 1998 11:12:09

Good Morning George,

In a message dated 98-01-21 10:03:05 EST, you write:

Of course, somewhere in about 2001, the day after the first person turns
on one of the $4,000 Russian GPS jammers in the NY area, the price of
used VORs/ILS units will soar.

How true! But think how much more interesting it will be if he waits till 2010 to do the
jamming after all of the VORs and ILSs are shut down, if that happens.
There are LOTS of problems to be solved, but in the meantime there is a great amount of
capability available at relatively low cost for operation in the current unjammed National
Airspace System.
I can’t see buying dual VORs or an ADF or a DME in the face of the FAA moving toward
an all space based nav system. If one has need of instrument flight today, the cheapest
way to go is one VOR/ILS and one IFR GPS. That still gives excellent redundancy
along with hedging of your bets for the future.
As I said earlier today, there are several hundred approaches today that allow either
access to an airport that did not have any approach before or availability of substantially
lower minima by using the IFR GPS.
If the signal is jammed, you will get a RAIM warning and reversion to the missed
approach would be proper along with a diversion to the alternate that is required to
have an approach other than a GPS.
Still seems to me to be the best and cheapest move for the economy minded user.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980121 111209 msg00423.tex]

899
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Moving Map
Sat, 13 Dec 1997 19:00:34

Good Evening Bob Briggs

In a message dated 97-12-13 10:35:39 EST, you write:

It seems to me the FAA has completely ignored the value of a moving

map display. How many accidents have resulted from lack of positional
awareness! I’ll take a GPS with a moving map any day over one just
coupled to a course deviation indicator. The CDI is a relic of VORs and
primitive display technology. Yet the FAA seems to be saying the IFR unit
with CDI is safer than a VFR unit with moving map.

I feel I must comment on this statement.

The FAA has not ignored the value of the moving map, in fact there are a number of
FEDs both in the US and in NAV CANADA who are pushing to require the moving
map as a mandatory feature of the next generation of GPS navigators.
I am very strongly opposed to that requirement and this is why.
If the moving map is included in the IFR approval process, it not only drives up the
cost of the set but the cost of getting the approval. On top of that, if the manufacturer
wants to improve the map, he must go through the FAA approval process again to make
those improvements available.
It seems to me that it is better to make the IFR approved GPS as simple as possible and
relate only to those functions absolutely necessary to get the job done. The fantastic
improvement in non-certified moving maps is evidence of how well the system works if
it is not necessary to gain government approval. The current crop of handheld moving
maps is nothing less than phenominal.
My vote is for one IFR approach approved GPS without a moving map and without
an OBS resolver and without the necessity of pushing buttons to enter and leave hold
mode. Such sets are now available on the market and they are the cheapest to buy and
the cheapest to install. (and I think the easiest to use)
Combine one of those with any of the modern handheld moving maps (or panel mount
maps if you have the bucks) and you have the best of both worlds. If the FAA had
required moving maps for the first generation of IFR approved sets we would still have the
little stick maps without all of the great detail and flexibility available on the handhelds.
You knock the CDI quite heavily, but we must remember that the autopilot is going to
follow a needle. All it knows is a plus or minus voltage. When on course the potential
is generally zero. Same thing for a CDI. Simple and cheap.
I like looking at the moving map, it is great for the current catch word ”situational
awareness” but my autopilot can’t follow it!

900
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

I personally find the neatest thing to use for handflying to be the actual ”track made
good” digital display on the GPS. If the course is 045 degrees and I am on course, if I
just fly 045 degrees on the ”track made good” indicator, (don’t forget declination error,
but that is another story) I will get to where I want to go. Wind changes at low altitude
are a snap, just maintain the same ”track made good” and to h with the heading!
Perfectly legal and easy. I use that indication when flying the ILS to help me hold a
stable inbound course. I wish there were something similar to help me with the glide
slope!
PLEASE! PLEASE don’t ask the FAA to add anything to the requirements for certi-
fication. The major expense now for an IFR set is the difficulty and expense of FAA
approval. The market is tiny and the procedure difficult and expensive. KEEP IT
SIMPLE!
There are integrity problems with the VFR hand helds. I doubt if any one who has
studied the stuation thoroughly would recommend them for approaches. At our current
state of technology, the panel mount is a necessity for IFR use and our only current
method of attaining integrity is the RAIM procedure. The FAA is insisting on current
data from a self contained database and the FAA, along with most industry experts, is
fighting the type of ”self load” we were allowed to do with the KNS-80 style RNAVs or
the old INSs. That would be the cheapest way to go but I don’t think it is in the cards!
I believe it was Ray L. who mentioned that it is not a lot more expensive to manufacture
an IFR set than the VFR ones. That is probably true. The big problem is who will pay
for the engineering and approval costs on such a limited market piece of equipment?
Lets all get together and urge maximim use to be made of the current C-129 sets. We
have a chance of getting that.
I urge any interested parties to sign up for the GPS for Aviation forum and read the
archives for the last six months. It will take a couple of hours, but all of this has been
hashed over there already.
I had rather hoped that this discussion would move to the GPS web site, but since it is
here, I just had to get my licks in!!
Old KEEP IT CHEAP,
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19971213 190034 msg02733.tex]

901
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Nav Data
Thu, 1 Jan 1998 17:50:02

Good Afternoon Bob Briggs,

In a message dated 97-12-30 14:16:08 EST, you write:

I don’t know how much, if anything, Jepp pays the gov’t for the raw data.
Of course, Jepp originally created and maintained their own database. I
don’t know the history of when the gov’t got involved or whether Jepp still
creates updates from non-gov’t sources in the USA. Bob Siegfried - is this
info available on the GPS web site you keep referring us to?

I haven’t seen any reference thus far on the GPS for AERO site but it might be a good
question to ask! Why don’t you sign up and try?
It is my understanding that the information as delivered by the government is in a
form that needs considerable modification before use. In addition, each GPS manufac-
turer needs the information applied with slight differences to work with their individual
software. I have been told that part of the cost of the updates is paid to the GPS manu-
facturer for the part they play in the update process so the cost is not totally determined
by Jeppesen.
A large part of the cost has to be whatever ”set-aside” Jepp makes for liability reserves.
They have been sued and have paid some pretty hefty settlements. As Shakespeare said
” First we kill all the lawyers” (or something like that) Oh Well!
I too would like to pay a lot less for my Jeppesen supplied data but I have not yet found
a competitive source with equivalent product. I fly less than two hundred and fifty hours
per year and spend about $1400 with Jepp. That’s $5.60 per hour just for information!
(I should fly more to get the cost down!)
AOPA has obtained a promise from the FEDs to do something about the data situation
and I would imagine eventually the problem will be solved. Unfortunately there seems
to be something of a chicken and egg situation.
Very few people are buying the data so the cost of supplying it has to be spread over a
small paying base. If more people were using the TSO C-129 equipment and obtaining
updates the cost per user could be a lot lower. Most people are waiting for the cost to
come down before they commit to the system and that won’t happen as long as there
are so few users!
I was told by one manufacturer at Sun n’ Fun last year that there were only around one
thousand IFR approvals in the whole USA and a lot of them don’t maintain a current
card. When that number is spread out amongst all the manufacturers, the market for
each individual data card becomes very small and I sometimes wonder how Jepp keeps
the price as low as it is!
Not very comforting is it?

902
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19980101 175002 msg00008.tex]

903
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Nav Data
Mon, 10 Aug 1998 19:59:32

Good Evening Mike McGahan,

In a message dated 98-08-10 17:42:49 EDT, you write:

Looks like an opportunity for somebody. Doesn’t the data come from the
FAA or NOS and is just formatted by Jep?

I have been told that the NOS data is just part of it. Jepp evidently does a lot of
processing and collating to put it in an ARINC format that is the industry standard for
FMCs and such.
Each manufacturer then writes an extraction program which is applied to Jepp’s master
database to take out that information which you and I want in our little black boxes.
We are still collectively a very small market and so far no one has decided to enter into
competition with Jeppesen for our business.
Possibly the answer is to eliminate all of the ”nice to have” things like frequencies,
availability of fuel and such. Maybe if all that was in the database were things like
VORs, intersections, NDBs and things that are actually needed to execute the approach,
the government data could be used directly?
If it were simple I suppose somebody would be doing it. Surely there must be one among
us who has the capability to evaluate whether or not competition is viable at this time?
Another problem that complicates things is the diversity among the various manufactur-
ers cards. Even the various versions of the same box from the same manufacturer take
different cards. I don’t know about the others, but for my Trimble there was a different
card for my TNL 2000, TNL 2000A, TNL 3000, TNL 3000T, TNL 2000 Approach and
TNL 2000 Approach Plus. That is seven different cards that have to be made available
for just these few very similar Trimble products! The overall market is very small and
terribly fragmented.
Can anyone tell us if the same problem exists for the other brands?
There is no doubt that the cost of the updates is one of the major stumbling blocks to
widespread use of the GPS.
How about some innovative solutions guys and gals!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980810 195932 msg04182.tex]

904
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

Nav Data
Wed, 23 Dec 1998 13:24:01

Good Morning Mike Mork,

I spoke to a lady at Jeppesen this morning and while she was not directly involved
with the problem, she provided some good information concerning the process used by
Jeppesen to get the data to we users. She advised that she will be looking into this
further and that we can expect more information soon.
Jeppesen has a master data base which contains just about everything imaginable that
anybody ever wanted to know but was afraid to ask!
They run an extraction program that pulls the data desired by any particular client (the
manufacturer or whatever) and that goes to the entity that provides the data to us. It is
then processed by a packing program provided by the client which puts the information
into a form to be used by the boxes we aviators use. That packing program may include
a lot of other things besides the data such as upgrades to the box etc.
One thing that came out in our conversation is that they have had several calls from users
complaining that certain terminal NDBs were not in the database when the operator
wanted to use the GPS in lieu of an NDB as provided by the July 17th interpretation.
Not all of the GPS manufacturers had included that information in their request for the
extraction of material and not all had elected to install it with their packing program.
Jeppesen has all of the information, but the client has to request precisely which infor-
mation they want and the manner in which it is to be presented.
So far it seems that II Morrow is the only manufacturer who doesn’t have a program to
utilize the approaches you want.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981223 132401 msg07796.tex]

905
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Nav Data
Tue, 27 Apr 1999 12:59:10

In a message dated 4/27/99 10:40:16 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

For the II Morrow this is not the case. The operators manual specifically
states you need to verify the data is up to date for the fixes being used, not
that the data card needs to be up to date. This was a major concession
that II Morrow got by the FAA.
Scott

Good Morning Scott,

If you have been following this GPS thread for a while, you will have noted that the II
Morrow [UPSAT] approval has been mentioned several times.
The approval to allow the pilot to ascertain the currency of the data for enroute functions
has been in the TSO C129 since it was first written. Not all of the manufacturers have
taken full advantage of that provision, though most have.
II Morrow, on August 4, 1997, received approval on a flight manual supplement which
allows the pilot to ascertain the currency of the data to be used for approach purposes as
well as enroute. Not all of the folks at the FAA are happy with that approval and many
local FSDOs have resisted approving that language in the individual airplane approvals
that are conducted through their office. I do believe that anyone who argues hard enough
and long enough will prevail and the II Morrow language will be ultimately accepted.
You must remember that when you buy an IFR approvable unit from any manufacturer,
it is not approved for use in IFR conditions. The individual installation and the POH for
that individual airplane must be approved, usually through the ”local approval” process.
Many in the FAA agree that if the wording is approved for II Morrow, it must also be
approved for all who submit that same language.
The requirement that the card be current for the ”GPS in lieu of ADF and DME”
function was inserted DUE to the approval that II Morrow had obtained. All of the
evaluations for suitability for IFR use had been conducted with the thought that a
current card would be used. When they found out about II Morrows approval, (Un-
fortunately, I was the one who told them about it.) they added the requirement for a
current card rather than holding up the approval. That is why I said in my previous
message, that action is being pursued to allow the pilot to ascertain currency of the data
in the database for the ”GPS in lieu of ADF and DME” function.
While that is not currently on the fast track, it is being pursued.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator

906
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

[ARTICLES/19990427 125910 msg04066.tex]

907
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Nav Data
Fri, 6 Aug 1999 19:23:16

Good Evening Doctor Rogers,

In a message dated 8/6/99 4:38:12 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

I am going to add my ‘vote’ to those that don’t have an approach certified

GPS simply because of the cost of the database updates and subscription
services.

You pays your money and you takes your choice!!

To me the hundreds of additional approaches and the accuracy of navigational infor-
mation for the older style approaches is well worth the cost for the type of flying I
do.
I do remember when a Narco Omnihomer sold for $375 and the Omnigator sold for $975.
Pretty cheap, but then, I was only making seventy-five cents an hour.
A Bonanza sold for about $9875, that made the Omnigator roughly ten percent of the
cost of a brand new high performance airplane.
Aviation has never been cheap, however the purchase of one IFR approach approved
GPS will allow more IFR approaches for the dollar spent than any other expenditure
you can make in navigational equipment. In today’s dollar, the GPS is cheaper than the
VOR was when it first came on the market and it compares favorably with new VOR
sets today.
I said:
The FAA has committed to attempting to put together a ”standard” database, but
that would still have to be something that would work with the different manufacturers
boxes. They all use different approaches to handling the data and that is the problem.
I don’t particularly want the FAA to force a standard on the industry as that would
stifle the innovation and advancement that we have enjoyed so much in the last few
years. Still, something has to be done to bring the cost down.
You said:
I do and I consider it the FAA’s or NOAA’s responsibility to do just that.
This is what standards are all about. If the format is simply enough and
flexible enough, then there is really no issue with ALL the manufacturers
conforming to it if they want the unit certified.
Doctor David, I certainly can’t match your academic credentials, but I think you are
dead wrong in asking for standards to be set at this stage of the game. What that
would accomplish is to force us all into using equipment built to the lowest common
denominator.

908
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

The costs are dropping now and there will be standard when the time is right and it
will be available over the Internet, but it won’t be free because there is just too much
intellectual effort necessary to put it all together.
When there are ten thousand customers for each printing instead of a few hundred, the
price will come down to a reasonable level and the providers will make a decent profit.
I think it is rather unreasonable to expect Jepp, or anyone else to provide the data at a
loss just so that we may have a lower cost until such time as the market is big enough
to justify those lower costs.
I dare say that if you want to start a business supplying that data at a lower cost than
Jeppesen is providing it, you will find a number of customers knocking on your door!
Give it a try, competition generally helps the consumer.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990806 192316 msg06734.tex]

909
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Nav Data
Sat, 7 Aug 1999 08:50:15

In a message dated 8/6/99 9:36:36 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

ok, but I have served on a number of standards committees and understand

the standards process quite well. The standards process doesnot seek the
lowest common denominator but rather attempts to formalize what is ac-
tually out there and to fill in the blanks when necessary. For example, in
this case JEPP might very well propose their format as a ‘straw man’, the
FAA/NOAA something somewhat different and then the industry, govern-
ment, users (alphabet groups) sit down over a period of time and hash out
an initial standard which is then submitted for public comment, hashed
somemore and finally published as a national standard.

Good Morning Doctor Dave,

What I perceive to be the meat of the paragraph quoted above is that you agree that
the industry will eventually boil this thing down to a point where it will be acceptable
to all and then the FEDs will stick their nose in and make that standard mandatory!
I would prefer that it be done without the intervention of the federal authorities. We
arrived at a standard VOR presentation without government edict. I think we could get
there without federal intervention for the information we use with our GNSS.
In any case I do think it will, and should, be the market that determines what we have.
On a slightly different note, if you would like the absolutely cheapest method of data
presentation that I can think of, why don’t you champion the cause of allowing self load
of the data?
That was the method we used in our Allied Signal KNS-80s and 84s and, I believe, the
RNAVs manufactured by others.
The airlines are still operating a large number of aircraft equipped with 9 channel INS
units that require manual loading of the data for navigation.
A set designed to that technology would require NO datacard!
The detractors of that scheme feel that we aviators are not sharp enough to avoid loading
the wrong data into the machine and must have datacards to protect us.
That is a STANDARD that was decided upon and imposed by the industry leaders and
the FAA when the GNSS was first proposed for civilian use.
I punched the numbers into an INS system for over twenty years and felt that the errors
were reasonable and the procedures established adequate to bring the operation to an
acceptable level of safety. Errors were made, but we always seemed to find them before
a problem developed. There is some supposition that an error in utilizing the INS may
have contributed to the KAL disaster.

910
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

I have been told that modern ”check digit monitoring” technology could be applied to
the dataloading process to bring the loaded data to an integrity that would rival that
of the datacard.
Those among us who are financially challenged could selfload and not have to worry
about the datacards and the folks who feel their time is better spent elsewhere could
pay a provider for the service they offer.
I will admit that at my present level of usage, I would still be buying the card monthly,
but selfloading could be an option during the time it would take to bring the cost of the
cards down to a lower level.
Sounds like a good place for a trained mathematician to spend some time figuring the
odds!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990807 085015 msg06754.tex]

911
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Nav Data
Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:54:01

In a message dated 8/6/99 11:44:39 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

But I am puzzled that the charges are so high currently. After all they
HAVE spent that effort but seem to shoot themselves in the foot with the
low volume. If the charges were down they’re not only sell more subscrip-
tions but likely more boxes which beget more subscriptions, etc.

Good Morning John,

All very true, but I rather doubt there is any profit for JEPP at the current price and
production levels. The chicken and egg thing again!
I also wonder just how big the market really is for the full IFR set? Is it big enough to
justify selling a product far below market price to establish market share? That is one
heck of a gamble for a company to take!
I think most of the IFR approved sets are still being sold to we who feel we must have
the latest, finest and fastest in our machines. I can’t bring myself to pop for the next
generation of TSO C129 sets, but I imagine I will belly up to the bar when a WAAS set
becomes available.
A single VHF NavComm along with a good handheld GPS allows one to fly IFR most
anywhere in the USA almost all of the time. Throw in a hand held Comm as a backup
and even the integrity numbers get pretty good!
When the major air carriers and then the third level carriers get into the act, the volumes
may get up to where we can obtain some benefit from the numbers. Even then, it is a
small market.
The primary reason handheld units are so cheap is that they are so similar to the stuff
being sold to the public for hiking, camping, fishing and such. We are the beneficiary of
that large market.
To bad we can’t figure a way for the IFR approach sets to be adapted for use in the
automobile!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990807 095401 msg06759.tex]

912
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

Nav Data
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:09:40

In a message dated 1/23/01 1:19:36 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

Also, do not some GPS updates only affect those that are updated? In
other words, aren’t the approaches that haven’t changed still legal to use
after the update expiration date? I think Bob went into that scenario once.
John

Good Afternoon John,

It Depends!
UPSAT has managed to get an approval to allow the use of out of date datacards for
approaches provided there is a method of assuring that the data is correct.
To my knowledge, no other manufacturer has a similar approval.
We must remember, though, that how the manufacturer got his set approved is not
necessarily the way yours will be approved.
The local FAA folks have received guidance that says they MAY use the same procedures
and restrictions as the manufacturer did when an installation is presented for local
approval.
As I think we all realize by now, each GPS IFR installation must go through the local
approval process and that process is very much dependent on how the local inspector
thinks it should be done.
In actual practice, if your installation is substantially the same as the one the manufac-
turer got approved, yours will likely be approved. That applies to your individual FAA
Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement as well as the nuts and bolts installation.
If you have an Apollo/UPSAT installation that was approved before August 17, 1997,
chances are that your flight manual does not allow the use of an outdated datacard for
any approaches, anytime, regardless of any method you may use to verify the accuracy
of the data. If you have one that was approved after that time, it may have the approval
to self check. If it isn’t listed that way in your flight manual, it isn’t legal even for the
Apollo/UPSAT boxes.
If you have any other IFR approved GPS than some model from Apollo/UPSAT, it
is highly unlikely that your flight manual supplement will allow any sort of self check
for approaches, but it will likely show that you can self check for IFR use for enroute
purposes. That approval has been in every flight manual supplement I have ever seen.
If you are intending to use the GPS in lieu of an ADF or a DME, the datacard must
be current, regardless of what it says in your supplement, for enroute, terminal and ap-
proach purposes. The authorization for that substitution specifically requires the current
datacard and that restriction overrides the flight manual supplement information.

913
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

All in all, I think that anyone who intends to rely on the approach capability of their
IFR box pretty well needs to get a current datacard.
If your major use of GPS is for enroute, the card is probably not necessary, but if you
want to shoot approaches, it can be pretty nice to have.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010123 170940 msg01575.tex]

914
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

Nav Data
Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:57:56

In a message dated 2/28/01 4:50:10 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Think so?
I’m getting the datacard from Jepp. Is Jepp giving a kickback to Northstar?
Northstar hasn’t sold a datacard in over 2 years.
Mike McNamara

Precisely!
Every card that is provided by Jeppesen provides a royalty fee for the manufacturer.
That is where the real money is. A continuing regular expense. Isn’t that the way the
cell phones work? You can give away the phones. The money is made on the monthly
fees.
I am not saying that is bad, it is just the way the economy works!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010228 175756 msg04879.tex]

915
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Nav Data Alternative

Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:55:59

Good Afternoon Mike McGahan,

In a message dated 98-08-11 13:45:46 EDT, you write:

Develop down load standards to up date data bases through the satellite
transmissions. Basic approach data only. This would be a major safety
enhancement, guaranteeing current approach data.

Something very similar has been proposed for the LAAS system. We would have no
charts in the airplane for the approach we were going to shoot and all of the information
would be sent to the box when we tuned in to the differential station to shoot the
approach. Sounds a little scary doesn’t it!
The mathematicians who are conducting the risk evaluation assessment are rather skep-
tical though, so I imagine it would be a while before we would see such transmissions.
Just think, no Jepp charts and no database costs!
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980811 155559 msg04215.tex]

916
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

Northstar
Fri, 25 Aug 2000 19:42:04

In a message dated 8/25/00 4:34:21 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob, what’s happening with Northstar? I love the ease of use of the M-1
and was planning to upgrade to their GPS sometime in the near future.
Thanks, Joe Christian P35 N61JC

Good Evening Joe,

First, you must realize that this is all rumor and speculation, but is based on some
factual observations.
Northstar had no presence at Sun ’n Fun or Oshkosh this year.
The rumor is that Canadian Marconi has the Northstar line up for sale. I have heard
that the unit they designed to use the JeppView charts has some air carrier and heavy
iron corporate takers, but the price is keeping it out of serious consideration for most of
the GA types.
They have/had a president of that division who was/is very impressive. I believe his
name is Scott Lewis and I would like to hear what he has to say.
At least they haven’t made any stupid announcements like Trimble did about their desire
to get out of GA. Trimble made that announcement and then put the division up for
sale. They had received such bad publicity that there were no serious takers.
Since they got out of GA, Trimble stock has doubled in price and they still claim to be
manufacturing more GPSs than any other manufacturer in the world.
I am sure the Trimble performance has not been lost on the directors of Canadian
Marconi. Why should they spend time and money on a small niche market like GA
when the rest of the world is clamoring for GPSs that require no approval from anybody
to use?
I wouldn’t buy a Northstar until they put out some information concerning their future
plans.
Remember to look at the above information from the perspective it deserves. It comes
from someone who felt that Trimble had the best technology and Northstar the most
user friendly operating system. When all of them were in production, my choices were
Trimble first, Northstar second, Apollo third, Garmin fourth and King last.
I, obviously, don’t understand the market at all!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob

917
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

[ARTICLES/20000825 194204 msg12576.tex]

918
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

Outages
Mon, 1 May 2000 17:28:49

In a message dated 5/1/00 4:08:39 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Larry and Bob:

On my return trip from LAL (Lakeland, FL) to KANP (Annapolis, MD),
I lost all GPS capability at 3,500’ when in the area of Jacksonville, FL for
about twenty minutes on my 430 - any thoughts? (First RAIM warning,
then no vertical help warning, then all was lost; returned in about 20
minutes; rest of the trip was fine). Steve

Good Afternoon Steve,

I understand the DOD is still running tests concerning their capability to shut down
GPS in areas of limited dimension in the event defense requirements dictate such an
action.
I have never had it happen to me, but I have heard reports of that sort of thing before.
If it was a scheduled test, it should have been in the NOTAMs for the area. Possibly
AOPA or somebody would be able to find out if a test was being conducted in that area
on the day you came through.
There have been some accidental shutdowns as well. A couple of years ago, they were
supposed to be doing a one or two minute test in the Poughkeepsie area on a Thanks-
giving weekend. The technician who threw the switch didn’t get it properly restored
and he went home for the holidays. GPS was blocked in a fairly large portion of New
York and Connecticut until he went to work on Monday. We have been assured that
current monitoring of the tests will not allow something like that to happen again.
I was flying out west one day when a couple of folks in the area reported a lack of RAIM
on their 90Bs. My Trimble worked fine in the same area. When I got to the show I was
heading for, I asked a King representative what was going on. He told me that King
uses a more conservative algorithm than does Trimble to evaluate the suitability of the
signal. That the 90Bs were correct in warning of an unsuitable signal. I called Trimble
and they said the King algorithm is way off base and will reject a perfectly usable signal.
I guess there are still differences of opinion in how things should work.
Who Knows?!!
If you find out anything from AOPA or anyone else, please let us know.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000501 172849 msg07445.tex]

919
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Panel Layout
Mon, 30 Oct 2000 15:40:43

In a message dated 10/30/00 1:37:08 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I’d like to see a picture of your panel so I can see how you positioned
everything. I just wonder if you wish the 530 were farther left, to be a part
of your scan.

Good Afternoon Tom,

Please excuse me from butting in on your conversation, but the area of discussion is
close to my heart.
I too prefer that my GPS be in the center panel and not over in the common Beech
canted radio stack.
My Trimble is mounted there, right next to the floating panel. It clears the control
column mechanism by about a half inch. John Small has kindly provided a photo of my
installation on his photo page.
Both the Garmin 430 and 530 are listed as being eleven inches deep, the same as the
Trimble. I do believe a 430 could be located in the center panel, but I think the 530
is too tall. It is possible that it could be done by raising the center panel up higher to
put the bottom of the set above the mechanism behind the panel, but that would take
major surgery to the panel and the glare shield. A local approval would probably be
required.
If all you really need is an IFR approach approved GPS, why not check to see what is
available on the used market. It seems that the majority of the buyers of the Garmins
are folks who already had some other brand IFR approved GPS. I would imagine there
should be many available.
I noted this morning that someone had listed a nice Garmin 155 quite reasonably on
this Bonanza site.
While I don’t particularly care for the Garmin 155 due to it’s operating architecture,
the price seemed right.
I absolutely love my Trimble but it is on the way out. Trimble is supporting it as is, but
has stated that there will be no updates or enhancement of it’s features.
It appear that Northstar is about dead also. That leaves ??Bendix/King?? General
Electric, Garmin and UPS as the only games in town.
If I were buying an IFR GPS today and wanted the simplest and lowest cost installation,
I would probably go with the UPS unit. If I were fitting out a new airplane and had to
buy the whole stack, I would probably go with the 430. It is probably the cheapest way
to get all of the feature it provides.

920
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

For my old eyes, the screen on the 430 is too small. The extra bucks that the 530
costs are more than I care to spend when it doesn’t allow me any additional operating
capability. A simple IFR approach approved set of any kind would allow you to execute
all of those nice GPS approaches that our tax monies are providing.
Well, that is a lot more than I meant to say!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001030 154043 msg15492.tex]

921
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Panel Mount IFR GPS Advice

Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:25:26

Good Morning Larry Grimm,

In a message dated 98-04-28 23:19:33 EDT, you write:

Tomorrow I find out if I am to be the proud owner of a 1978 A-36. It has no

Loran, let alone a GPS. First order business is to install a panel mounted
unit. Since I am spending most of my money on the plane, keep that in
mind when you make a recommendation (and give me a cost estimate if
you recommend something).

First, congratulations on your choice of the A36, an excellent Beech product. Is this
your first or are you moving from another Beechcraft?
Before I give you my highly biased opinion concerning your posted questions, I must
mention that I am the owner of a Trimble 2000 Approach Plus and have flown the GPS
around 1300 hours since 1991 when I installed the first Trimble panel mount unit in my
Bonanza.
Just as I have become an irrational devotee of the Bonanza over the years, I am rapidly
acquiring the same sort of attachment to my Trimble. It and I am sure ALL of the IFR
sets are truly magic.

1. Given the way things are going, I suppose I should be considering only
an IFR certified unit. True?

That would be my recommendation.

Whatever set you decide on will be obsolete the day you buy it. Such is the way of
electronics today. It will, however, be usable for many years to come. Most of the
changes are in the form of bells and whistles, things that are fun to have, but that do
not affect the usability of the set for IFR functions. The electronics from the satellites
change slowly. There is a seven year time frame from the time changes are decided upon
until sufficient satellites are in place to accomplish a major change in operation. There
are some changes being made to the new satellites which will allow program changes to
be made from the planet Earth, but that is still in the future.
The fact that we in aviation are a tiny minority of the GPS users will assure that the
present type of signals will be available for many years to come and the powers that be
have promised that the new WAAS style of approaches will include NPAs in the same
way as todays ILS approaches include a ”no glide slope” approach.
Purchasing a TSO C-129 set today will allow you to get used to the operating philosphy
of the new Flight Management Computer friendly ”To-To” system that the industry is
adapting. (I personally don’t think we lightplane types need it, but the system is being
designed for the glass cockpit boys, not us.)

922
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

2. What manufacturer and model would you recommend? (keep in mind

that the unit is not replacing anything, so there is no slot)

This is always a tough one. I personally don’t like having the moving map in the panel
mount unit. On Beech Bonanza style aircraft it is difficult to get the panel mount unit
where it is in the normal pilot scan. On my airplane I mounted it in the center panel
so that it is in normal view but that is a rather difficult and expensive solution. The
buying public has decreed that they want the moving map in the panel mount and all
of the newer boxes are going in that direction. I really don’t think you should have to
look all of the way over to the radio stack to see your moving map but a lot of people
have it that way and are deliriously happy with such equipment!
I rather like having a handheld such as the Garmin 195 or Lowrance unit as a moving
map. That not only gives a higher quality, easier to read map, but provides a backup
GPS with battery power capability. My map mounts on the center of the control column.
There are several new units on the market with list prices below $4000. A good shop
can install any of the units in a perfectly clean brand new airplane for the list price,
BUT if there are any radios, antennas or other equipment that have to moved, the price
can escalate rapidly.
The Trimble 2000 Plus currently lists for $4895 (it was $5995 last september when I
installed mine) My local electronic guru says that he could install one in a new airplane
for around $6000, all indicators, annunciators, connections to baro and full IFR approval
included but he recently quoted $6950 to put one in a friends P35 Bonanza.
I have seen quotes on the internet as low as $4000 for a complete installation of some of
the cheaper sets but I wonder if that really includes all of the required equipment and
approvals?

3. Should I be considering a used unit?

I wouldn’t. There is so much going on and the prices are dropping so rapidly that the
cost of installation and approval are becoming an ever larger percentage of the total and
those costs would remain the same for a used box.
I highly recommend that you do purchase an IFR approved box but there are some other
things that should be addressed such as what type equipment your airplane currently
has and what type of IFR flying you do.
If you would rather not tie up the Beech net with GPS stuff, feel free to contact me
directly and I would be happy to discuss this further.
Bob Siegfried Ancient GPS Nut
[ARTICLES/19980429 092526 msg02172.tex]

923
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Panel Mount IFR GPS Advice

Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:41:04

Good Morning All,

Some time ago there were questions concerning difficulties getting IFR approvals (and
other local approvals) from the west coast FAA FSDOs.
Good news!
My son received full IFR approval on March 27, 1998 for installation of a Trimble 2000
Approach Plus in his Beech 18.
The work was done by Avtronics at San Carlos Airport. The supplement is signed by
Nicholas E. Pearson from the San Jose FSDO.
Incidentally my son is very pleased with the capability and operation of the set and has
flown a couple of actual IFR trips with it already. He found it very easy to learn to
use. The dealer included the Trimble Trainer CD-ROM disc program for training but
my son has not found time to try it out. I did show him the basic functions of the set
in my airplane.
Incidentally, Trimble sells the entire training program for around a hundred bucks but
they will give you the simulator portion free (good advertising). It is available to be
downloaded off their website. There are two programs available, one for the older TNL
2000 Approach and a separate one for the newer TNL 2000 Approach Plus.
Even if you have another brand of GPS, the program is fun to play with and will allow
you to shoot all of the approaches in the USA. Besides, it’s FREE.
Happy Skies
Bob Siegfried Ancient GPS Nut
[ARTICLES/19980429 104104 msg02175.tex]

924
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

Panel Mount Unit Comparison

Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:36:49

In a message dated 8/25/00 9:12:24 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I have a general GPS question. I’m looking into finally replacing my KLN88
Loran with an IFR GPS.. Possibly an Apollo 2001 or KLN89B, which my
budget will afford. Does anyone have any experience on which one is easier
to use IFR.
Thanks for the help, Rob F35/PDX.

Good Morning Rob,

For ease of use, you might find the 89B slightly more familiar. Some of the concepts are
similar to those used for the KLN88. The 90B is just a warmed over 88 so it would be
very familiar, but it is awfully expensive and rather outdated.
The 2001 is also an outdated piece of machinery.
I think the best choice for pure economy currently available is the UPSAT (Apollo)
GX50 or if you need a new comm, the GX60.
If you are gong to replace everything, ILS, glideslope, VOR, comm and all, it is hard to
beat the Garmin 430. I find the screen hard to read with my old eyes, but the 530 will
solve that dilemma.
One more thing that might enter into your decision is the capability of being able to use
S-Tec’s new autopilot coupler. It uses an output which is available in the KLN88 and
KLN90B. I believe it is available in the 430 and 530, but am not sure. It is not available
for the Northstar, Apollo, lower priced Allied Signal/Honeywell and Trimble offerings.
If you will allow me to state a personal prejudice, I don’t like any set that requires a
resolver.
Allied Signal/Honeywell and Garmin are the only manufacturers which require that
abomination for all of their offerings.
UPSAT/Apollo, Northstar and Trimble do not. Unfortunately, it appears that Apollo is
the only likely survivor of that trio, so the possibility of finding a resolverless set which
meets your requirements is lessened.
I won’t go into all of the details of why this is so, but the resolver is not as onerous in
the 430 and the 530 as it is in the rest of Garmin and Allied Signals offerings.
My choice for the lowest cost and easiest installation would be the GX50.
If you have any need for another transmitter, the GX60 adds a transmitter at relatively
low cost. That would probably be my over all first choice today, but I have never flown

925
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

one!
Any help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000825 103649 msg12556.tex]

926
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

Panel Mount Unit Features

Sun, 24 Dec 2000 18:34:56

In a message dated 12/24/00 4:59:52 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

With the Garmin 430’s(I have a lowly GX55) or whatever there number is
with the big color display way over on the right side of the panel, drawing
your attention away from the really important instruments, seems like a
real waste to me...
Wouldn’t it be ”better” to get a no frills display IFR approved GPS at a
much cheaper price, and replace the DG with a sandel type display that
provided DG, MAP, ect...

Good Evening Scott,

I guess we all have our own priorities as to what we want to watch at various times.
I don’t care for a moving map all of the way over in the stack either.
I have a hunch that the modern 430 or 530 might be best if it were mounted in one of
the early Bonanza panels where the old original LF radios were mounted. That would
place it in a prime viewing area and eliminate all of those extreme eye movements.
But, having said that, I also wonder how good of an idea it is to be looking at the
moving map while flying IFR anyway!
The system is based on our flying the CDI. The moving map is merely an orientation
tool. It really doesn’t need to be used very often.
I have my IFR approach approved GPS mounted in what I consider to be a prime
viewing area. It is on the left side of the center panel right next to the floating panel.
If I ever do decide to spend the money for some sort of an MFD, it will most likely be
mounted in about the same spot. The MX20 will fit there very nicely, but the Garmin
530 is too long. It would hit the control column mechanism. Still, on a low approach,
I am watching the needles, not the moving map. The map gives great orientation, but
does not allow the precise on course tracking that is possible following a needle. If the
scale is set so the course can be flown via the map as closely as it can be with a needle,
the map covers such a small area that it is useless for orientation. I use my moving map
primarily to keep me out of various types of airspace when I am flying VFR.
For me, the GPS is a valuable tool which adds considerable flexibility to my operation.
The moving map is a toy which is fun to play with and is very useful for VFR flight. It
adds little or nothing to low approach capability.
As to the Sandel, for those who have money to burn or who have a major problem finding
panel space, the Sandel can solve some problems, but for real increased capability, I place
it in the fun to have, strictly a toy, category. Who knows, if the market starts back up,

927
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

I might get one myself! I love to play with toys.

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001224 183456 msg18299.tex]

928
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

Portable vs. IFR Panel Mount

Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:41:19

Good Evening Bob Briggs,

In a message dated 10/27/98 6:14:09 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

I haven’t bought a panel mount because my handheld GPS with moving

map is much cheaper and does the job.

And you are typical of the vast majority of the pilots in the country. Very few have the
need to execute approaches to the lower minima available with the IFR approved GPS
and most seldom have need to fly to those small airports which have no other approach
capability.
As I have stated many times before, the person who can gain the greatest economic
benefit by purchase of an IFR approach approved GPS is that person who needs to
equip an airplane from scratch.
However, even that operator has no need for anything other than a VOR if all he/she does
is operate in the enroute environment and to VFR ceiling and visibility requirements.
Just the ability to operate IFR enroute provides a vastly greater operational capability
than is enjoyed by the strictly VFR pilot.
At least half of the ILS and VOR approaches in the country can be executed without
an ADF or a DME, so if one restricts their operation to flights of that sort, no further
equipment purchases are justified.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981027 204119 msg06375.tex]

929
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

RAIM
Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:46:17

In a message dated 1/27/01 8:09:27 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

O.K. What is RAIM???

Good Evening Cy,

RAIM stands for Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring.
That means that the receiver is capable of monitoring itself to compute the required
integrity and warn the operator when the integrity falls below the standard for IFR
navigation (or something close to that)!
It has to have at least six spheres to compare, one of which can be the planet earth
via a barometric altitude evaluation. Four satellites for 3D position, one to check the
others for reasonableness and one more to check the fifth one for reasonableness. You
electronic experts feel free to correct my interpretation, but that should suffice for we
dumb aviator types!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010127 224617 msg02045.tex]

930
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

Resolver/Serializer
Sat, 24 Oct 1998 00:24:20

Good Evening John Small,

In a message dated 10/23/98 9:36:33 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

What is a resolver and serializer?

The resolver is the connection between an instrument on the panel and the GPS set that
will allow you to set various courses in the panel mount GPS to be flown as desired.
Sometimes a dedicated OBS type of instrument is used and in other cases an existing
VOR head or HSI is utilized to input the desired course. The Garmin, Allied Signal
(King) and the newest Trimble all use this type of input.
The proponents feel that it is an easier transition from the VOR to GPS operations
since it is necessary to set in the desired course as one would with a VOR.
Northstar, II Morrow (Apollo) and the older Trimble units do not use that setup and
the courses are either input automatically or if a change is desire, the action is taken
directly with the panel unit.
I think the later is a simpler system to use and it is a lot cheaper to have installed. It
also makes for one less thing to go wrong. Fewer actions are required on the part of the
operator.
The serializer is a device that takes the parallel information from the altitude encoder,
which requires eleven wires to transmit, and changes it into a serial form, transmittable
over one wire, for use in the GPS solution. Barometric input is required on all of the IFR
approved sets to attain the greatest accuracy of position possible. Having a Barometric
input makes the earth one of the required satellites. An adequate RAIM computation
can be acquired with one less satellite if Baro information is available.
Hope that helps.
Happy Skies,
Ancient Bob
[ARTICLES/19981024 002420 msg06235.tex]

931
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Resolver/Serializer
Thu, 27 Apr 2000 19:43:47

In a message dated 4/27/00 3:40:19 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Exactly what does the resolver do and why might I need one?

Good Evening Bob,

I’ll see if I can totally confuse the issue, you know I am good at making a long story out
of a short one, I wish I could do it the other way, but here goes anyhow!
For all of the sets except the King/Honeywell and Garmin, the course to be flown is
normally set automatically by the panel unit. If the pilot wants to set a course other
than the one chosen by the set, he/she can do so by twisting a knob on the panel unit
itself. You might have to punch a button or two as well.
On the Garmin and the King/Honeywell, there has to be some sort of a device on the
pilots primary panel which will allow that course to be set in the same manner as one
would set a VOR course. I have never flown an IFR Garmin and only used the King
stuff a couple of times, but to the best of my recollection, the set will tell you what
course to set and then you do the twisting on the little knob on your primary panel and
the course that the set told you to use is active. Having that capability of setting the
course via something on the primary panel is what they call having a resolver. Many
of the current VOR navigation heads can be used for the resolver function, but not all.
If the existing head can be used, there will be a switch to change it from VOR use to
GPS use. (Even if you have a resolverless GPS, if you are using an existing head for a
CDI, there will be a need for a switch, but the setup is simpler and should be cheaper.)
The knob will set the desired course and the CDI will reflect the position relative to the
type navigation selected.
When the first IFR approvals were being obtained, having to do the wiring and the mod-
ifications to the existing VOR heads added about a thousand bucks to the installation
costs. On top of that, it just adds another thing to go wrong.
Now why do I say that it is not such a big deal if you use an HSI? The VOR mechanism
is not in the HSI, so all HSIs are equipped to provide the heading information to another
source. They need to do that for the VOR already. It is a relatively simple job to just
install a switch to send the information to either a GPS or the VOR. Consequently, it
is cheaper than having to modify an existing VOR head or provide another device to
provide the function.
On top of that, if you have a resolverless GPS and an HSI, you will find that you still
have to keep resetting the HSI every time you make a turn so that the HSI will continue
to give you that properly oriented picture for which you paid so much money! Depending
on the brand and sophistication of your autopilot, you may have to make adjustments
to the heading bug to make the autopilot work properly. If your autopilot is very simple

932
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

and doesn’t have a heading reference, it may track the GPS just fine without turning
any knobs at all! I can hook my GPS up to my back up Century I roll unit and it will
track the GPS around arcs and all sorts of things without me touching anything! When
I use my primary roll autopilot, I have to keep resetting the heading bug because that
autopilot feeds from the HSI and uses the heading information as part of the solution.
If you don’t have an HSI, but you do have the resolverless set, you can just sit there and
watch everything being done automatically. There is no need to twist any knobs at all.
How did all this stupidity come about?
When the first IFR approach approved GPSs were up for approval, there were some
folks in the industry and a lot of folks in the FAA who felt that the operation of the
GPS should be made as much like the operation of a VOR as possible so that we stupid
light plane pilots could adapt to them without having to learn anything new. Most of
the technical folks who were designing the set were of the opinion that we should design
the sets so that they took advantage of the new techniques that they were capable of
and not try to make the GPS just a simple substitute for the VOR.
All of the manufacturers were designing a panel mounted GPS unit which had the
capability of setting the desired course via a knob on the panel mounted GPS set. The
FAA person who was in charge of the program at that time was insisting that the course
should be set by turning a knob on an instrument mounted on the pilots flight panel
and that there must be a CDI on the pilots panel as well. Most of the manufacturers
went along with the requirement to have a CDI in the pilots direct view, but balked at
the requirement to put a device in that location to set in the desired course to be flown.
Nobody was getting anywhere on their approvals. Garmin finally caved in and agreed
to install the device the FED wanted. They got their approval.
Bendix/King then caved in as well and they got theirs approved. Trimble, Northstar and
II Morrow held out for the system that all of the manufacturers had originally wanted.
It took almost another year until wiser heads in the FAA finally saw the light and
the Trimble was approved without a resolver. Within months of Trimble getting their
resolverless design approved, Northstar and then II Morrow had their unencumbered
approvals as well. Garmin and King screamed foul at first, but then decided that they
would claim that the resolver made the set work more like a VOR and tried to turn the
debacle to their advantage. It was easier and cheaper than trying to do a redesign at
that stage.

Whjat make and model is typically used if an external resolver is needed?

Not sure I can answer that, maybe you could expand the question?

Why is one not needed if the GPS is driving an HSI?..

I hope I have covered this!

Why is it that one might or might not be needed if driving a VOR CDI? ..

933
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

I think I covered that as well.

I don’t have an HSI. My thought is to use a Mid Continent MD200 indica-

tor, which is a 3 inch CDI that can support the GPS and the VOR/LOC/GS.
I thought GPS units like the GNS430 or UPSAT GX60 interfaced directly
to this indicator.

I don’t have a catalog handy, but you are probably correct. I don’t know the cost
structure right now, but Mid Continent should have a three inch CDI that would work
with a resolverless set at a substantially lower price that the one that must provide the
heading information to the GPS. I would imagine that the economies of supply are such
that there isn’t as big a difference between the two types as there was in the early days.
The 430 needs the resolver for both the VOR function and the GPS. No big deal either
way. The GX60 has no need for the heading information and should be able to use a
much cheaper CDI than the 430, possibly even an existing VOR one or a standalone
that also includes any required annunciator lights. The 430 also handles the need for
annunciators within the set

Where does the resolver fit in?

I hope I have covered this.

Why is it built into some GPS sets?

It is not that the Trimble, Northstar and II Morrow units have the resolver built in, it
is just that they have no need, or provision, for an external input!
Not sure about this, but I THINK all of the panel mounts have the capability of setting
courses via the panel unit.
If you have stuck with me this long, I hope it has helped.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000427 194347 msg07188.tex]

934
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

Resolver/Serializer
Sat, 26 Aug 2000 11:54:17

In a message dated 8/26/00 10:06:38 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I like the M3 a lot. I was shocked to learn, on my friends Garmin 430, that
he had to keep twisting the OBS on every course change while shooting an
approach. I don’t have to touch anything, which reduces my work load at
a critical time.

Good Morning Mike,

That knob twisting is a result of the design which requires a resolver. If the airplane is
equipped with an HSI, the knob twisting is not quite as onerous, you have to adjust the
HSI to make it look right anyhow. Most autopilots will need the heading and course
input as well.
The disgusting thing is that neither Garmin or King wanted to use a resolver in the first
place, but there was an idiot in the FAA who insisted that the resolver be used to make
the operation more like a VOR. Garmin finally caved in and installed one. Allied signal
followed suit a couple of weeks later. Trimble, Northstar and II Morrow held out and
it took almost another year until Trimble finally got their resolverless design approved.
That was followed in a few weeks by approvals for the Northstar and the Apollo.
My informants tell me that Garmin and King were furious when Trimble got their
approval, but finally decided to stick with the resolver design and pedal it as a better
system!
Now that modern navigation is going toward a to – to design philosophy, there is little
need for an HSI other than to free up some panel space. A pure CDI does the job very
well and there is no knob twisting required at all! I love my HSI, but would never buy
another one for any reason except panel space.
Another anomaly concerns the use of a simple wing leveler with tracking capability. It
will follow the CDI indication of a resolverless design just fine and needs no heading or
course input at all.
This is a case where the cheaper system can actually be the one with the lowest workload.
You just never know what is going to happen with this industry.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000826 115417 msg12612.tex]

935
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

SA
Mon, 1 May 2000 12:12:32

In a message dated 5/1/00 10:35:25 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Does this mean my GPS will be much more accurate tomorrow? If so, how
much more accurate?

Good Morning Jerry,

It will gain no basic accuracy.
The SA [Selective Availability] has been turned off occasionally over the last couple of
years, usually when a new satellite has just been put in orbit. They would shut it down
so as to have an uncluttered system while the existing satellites were repositioned and
checked for proper signal propagation and positioning.
I have noted very high accuracy during those times. It was generally followed by a few
days of large errors, some as high as 800 feet. I assume they were checking the extremes
of the error input following the satellite realignment.
I have a spot where I do my runup for which I have a very accurate survey. Supposedly
within a foot.
When I do a GPS position check at that point, I find that the error is generally 120 to
180 feet, occasionally 300 to 400 feet.
I am expecting that the error tomorrow should be less than 100 feet and hoping that it
will be less than 60 feet!
It will be interesting to see.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000501 121232 msg07413.tex]

936
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

SA
Tue, 2 May 2000 14:21:29

In a message dated 5/2/00 1:05:06 PM Central Daylight Time, beech [email protected]

writes:

Cool! So perhaps deactivating SA [Selective Availability] results in an order

of magnitude greater precision.

Hi Again John,
In reality, the FAA should establish new tighter TERPS requirements for GPS ap-
proaches. I don’t think it will happen unless we in GA fight for it. The airlines couldn’t
care less. They are getting precision approaches almost everywhere they want now and
have little interest in out of the way non precision approaches.
I am going to be gone till Sunday, why don’t you stir up some interest in bugging the
FEDs for recognition of the new capabilities of GPS?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000502 142129 msg07530.tex]

937
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Serializer
Thu, 13 Aug 1998 15:57:20

Good Afternoon Scott,

In a message dated 98-08-13 11:57:03 EDT, you write:

Why is this?? GPS is non-precision so theres no altitude information for

the approach? It adds $600/$700 to the installation.

The following is my non-techie explanation so take it for what it’s worth!

The altitude (Baro) input is used to increase the integrity of the signal. By having a
baro input, the earth is used as another satellite. You can get RAIM with as few as five
properly located SVs (space vehicles) instead of six. Thus the baro really has nothing
to do with altitude as we pilots use it.
The price quoted seems high to me.
Shadin produces a combination encoder and serializer unit which was selling for around
$375. It works great, but when they found out that they were basically the only game
in town, they raised the price to $1100 or so.
This unit puts out a one wire (serialized) stream of information.
There are numerous boxes on the market into which you can feed the output of the
encoder (I believe it is eleven wires of data) to convert it to a single or serialized stream.
They sell from around $150 to $400.
Since Shadin raised the price so drastically, most of the manufacturers have added a
”grey coder converter” to their GPS so that the data from the encoder you already have
can be fed to the box and converted to what they need internally.
I believe II Morrow is the only one who still needs the serializer or additional encoder.
Personally, I would avoid any unit that requires a serializer or a resolver, but there are
others who think the extra cost is worth it.
Hope that helps!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator.
[ARTICLES/19980813 155720 msg04302.tex]

938
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

Vertical Guidance Data

Wed, 27 Dec 2000 15:39:03

In a message dated 12/27/00 12:27:03 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Would be nice because I believe the gps database has that information in
it, for vertical guidance display.
Scott

Good Afternoon Scott,

I don’t think that information is currently in the Jeppesen database. VNAV, when it is
authorized, is obtained by a computation based on the altitude at the FAF, the altitude
at the DA(H) and the distance between those points. As I am sure you are aware, many
flight management computers are capable of providing that information now. Some
use barometric altitude in the solution and others do not. In any case, approval for
the VNAV operation is not currently available to we vast unwashed masses. Hopefully,
WAAS will bring it down to a price and weight we can handle.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001227 153903 msg18455.tex]

939
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

Vertical Guidence Data

Wed, 27 Dec 2000 18:38:48

In a message dated 12/27/00 4:08:56 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I wasn’t asking if the VNAV needle was available.

I just wanted to see what the minimum altitude for that leg is. In other
words it would show 1520 if the minimum alt was 1520 ft. Then after
sequencing to the next leg it would change to the altitude for that leg.
And icing on the cake would be to get the altitude data from the GPS and
color code the display output, yellow above, green within 25 ft above, low
FLASHING RED!!! Or maybe a skull and cross bones icon if you went low!
Scott

Good Evening Scott,

Sorry if I misinterpreted your question.
I think the system you describe would be great!
In your statement ”Would be nice because I believe the gps database has that informa-
tion in it, for vertical guidance display.” I assumed that you were under the impression
that the minimum altitudes for a step down fix were already in the Jeppesen Database
from which most, if not all, manufacturers gain the information to apply to their data
cards.
I was merely trying to point out that such altitude information is not required for the
calculation required to use the VNAV program and I am under the impression that it
is not currently available from that source.
It would be nice if all of the approach information was presented in the approach box.
We wouldn’t have to be bothered with carrying all of the approach data in the aircraft!
There have been proposals that the approach data be stored on the satellite. When you
punched up a GPS (or other) approach, that data would be transmitted to the aircraft
for use on the approach. That way, the pilot would always have current data and no
approach plate or Jeppview would be required. Great idea, isn’t it?
All of the neat things like that are possible. All it takes is money and a desire to develop
the equipment. I would imagine the technical problems would be relatively simple to
solve, but the availability of adequate communication channels could be problematical.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001227 183848 msg18461.tex]

940
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

WAAS
Mon, 1 May 2000 11:56:41

In a message dated 5/1/00 10:11:06 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Does this mean WAAS is not needed and what does WAAS stand for?

Good Morning Will,

WAAS stands for Wide Area Augmentation System.
As to whether or not it is still needed, that depends!
I hope that WAAS is implemented.
When it was first proposed, it was felt by the powers that be that WAAS would provide
a signal source which would increase the integrity of the signal to such a degree that we
could use GPS as a ”sole means” navigation source.
Unfortunately, someone within the power structure came up with a figure that any nav-
igation system used to replace what we have now had to have an integrity, or reliability
factor, such that any failure would be presented to the operator, in a very short period
of time, with a certainty of 10 to the 7th power.
It is reasonably certain that the accuracy of a GPS signal adjusted for positional and
atmospheric errors by a WAAS signal could give us guidance with an accuracy of six to
eight feet anywhere within the coverage sphere of the WAAS signal. That’s good enough
for at least ”300 and three quarters” and possibly even ”200 and a half” provided proper
obstacle clearance, adequate lighting and IFR runway markings are available.
So far, no one has figured out how to guarantee that the short warning of failure time
will occur with a probability of one in ten million times.
We have put ourselves in a position where we have the technology available to provide
a very accurate and useful system. But, we have difficulty proving it will work with to
a reliability factor so high that it has never been attained by any current navigation
system.
It is politically difficult for those folks in the ivory tower to either admit that they set
the goals too high or to admit that the goal is unattainable at this time.
Have I said too much already?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000501 115641 msg07409.tex]

941
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

WAAS
Mon, 1 May 2000 13:43:15

In a message dated 5/1/00 12:08:36 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

One of the perceived flaws of the GPS system is that its satellites move rel-
ative to the earth and it can’t guarantee that enough satellites will always
be visible everywhere to meet the availability criteria required for preci-
sion landing guidance. This is one of the things WAAS is intended to fix.
WAAS provides full-time availability because the WAAS satellites will be
in geostationary orbits instead of the lower altitude moving orbits of the
GPS birds. The WAAS satellites will always be in the same place in the
sky and never disappear from view. Thus, it augments the coverage of the
GPS birds.
Larry Templeton ’63 Deb

Good Afternoon Larry,

I have absolutely no argument with the thought that the WAAS [Wide Area Augmenta-
tion System] satellites will provide additional coverage. I think it is misleading, though,
to state that the coverage of the normal system is not adequate for the guidance ex-
pected from the primary system. The coverage worldwide is now very good. I find that
I am usually utilizing at least eight and quite often ten satellites for a solution. The
system was originally designed to be able to provide full world wide coverage with a
constellation of 21 satellites. There was to be 3 extra ones provided so that coverage
would be available should one of the 21 be unavailable. I believe the number of satellites
planned for ”normal” coverage is now up to 24 and that there are currently somewhere
around 31 usable SVs up there.
The primary advantage to the Geostationary WAAS satellite system is to be available
to receive corrections from the ground stations that will, or have been, located around
the country to provide time corrections on a real time basis. The satellites are put
in a geostationary position because that is the most cost efficient method to cover a
relatively small area of the earth such as the hemisphere in which the US is located. It
is assumed that other areas of the world will be covered by WAAS type systems provided
by governments in those respective areas.
The accuracy of the current GPS constellation is not limited by the number of satellites,
but rather by the atmospheric anomalies introduced by the passage of the signal through
the earths atmosphere and a few other positional problems. By placing a few (somewhere
around twenty or thirty) ground based receivers at well surveyed strategic sites around
the country, a determination of the position error in the signal may be determined
for a relatively small geographic area. That information is then transmitted to the
geostationary satellite from where it may be sent to the aircraft’s individual receiver
and used to provide a corrected position.
An even better idea of the accuracy of the basic constellation at an individual landing

942
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

site may be had if there is a receiver based on the ground at that landing site. That could
provide an accuracy in the order of a foot or less. Such a system, if installed, would be
called LAAS, Local Area Augmentation System. It is hoped LAAS will provide adequate
guidance and integrity to allow Cat IIIC approaches. Both WAAS and LAAS are still
in the development stage and the names of both may change. They are both methods
of providing differential corrections in the same manner as are currently provided for
marine interests by the Coast Guard and by numerous private companies for the use of
farmers, surveyors and numerous other entities.
Additional satellites always help, especially in mountainous areas, but the big need is
for some method of correcting for the atmospheric and positional errors.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000501 134315 msg07422.tex]

943
5.7. GPS-MISC CHAPTER 5. GPS

WAAS and Accuracy

Mon, 1 May 2000 15:24:12

In a message dated 5/1/00 1:36:22 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Improving the percent time availability of the required positional accuracy

is certainly not the only reason for WAAS, but it is one of the reasons.
Larry Templeton

Hi Larry,
No argument with that statement either.
The accuracy that can be obtained via the current constellation, even when augmented
by more satellites, is still only in the order of twenty meters. They originally hoped for
fifteen meters, but are a little more conservative right now.
For two hundred and a half, they want something in the order of one meter both vertically
and horizontally. Some experts say that two meters would do it, others say two meters
would only be good for around three hundred and three quarters.
I guess it means that we need to define what is meant by a ”precision approach.”
The current GPS guidance is good enough, and is currently approved for, a non precision
approach MDA of 250 feet. That can only be utilized if there are absolutely no obstacles
in the approach zone and missed approach plane which are higher than the runway
threshold. The current minimum visibility requirement for a non precision approach
is one half mile, provided suitable lighting is installed and utilized. The lowest Non
Precision Approach of which I am aware has an MDA of 263 feet AG and a visibility
minimum of one half mile.
The GPS signal we civilians are currently using was originally called the Coarse Acqui-
sition signal. By common usage it has become accepted as the Course Acquisition signal
due to both words being pronounced the same and the word ”course” being associated
so strongly with navigation language. (Even the AIM has it misspelled)
It was called the Coarse Acquisition signal as it was sent to provide the military a
position which they could then refine with a signal called the P or Precision signal.
The basic Coarse Acquisition signal has a best case accuracy of around fifteen meters
anywhere on the planet earth when at least four satellites are in position for reasonable
spherical triangulation.
We need a couple of more satellites to get the required RAIM computations performed.
While the extra satellites also add to the accuracy of the solution, it still comes nowhere
close to the guidance required for even a CAT I approach.
Modification by the military P code brings that accuracy down to something around
seven to eight meters. That is still nowhere near good enough for ILS style approaches
down to and below three hundred feet.

944
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.7. GPS-MISC

Two more civilian signals have been authorized. When those are implemented on a
suitable number of satellites, we should start getting accuracy as great as, or better
than, the military has now. However, it is still likely that some sort of differential signal
will be required to get the accuracy required for the CAT I approaches and some sort of
local differential, or possibly even some sort of locally ground based satellite (pseudolite),
may be required for Cat II and on down to Cat IIIc.
The two new frequencies won’t do us much good for some time because it takes around
seven years from the time a decision has been made to modify the satellites until a
sufficient number are in place to institute a new mode of guidance.
Until some sort of augmentation or differential is in place, the approaches won’t get
much better or lower than they are now.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000501 152412 msg07431.tex]

945
5.8. GPS-REGS CHAPTER 5. GPS

5.8 GPS-REGS

946
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.8. GPS-REGS

Non-Certified Navigation Equipment

Sat, 24 Oct 1998 23:43:23

Good Evening Kenneth David Burrows, Attorney-at-Law,

In a message dated 10/24/98 6:45:54 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

That I should contradict the Ancient Siegfried, heaven forfend! But I think
I should report verbatim a ”Reminder” on the monthly Aviation Safty
Program mailer I got from the Windsor Locks CT FSDO:
”USE OF NON-CERTIFIED NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT Briefers at the
Flight Service Station have noticed a trend in pilots filing IFR flight plans
requesting direct routing that is dependant on non certified navigation
equipment (i.e. hand held GPS’s [sic]). Kenneth David Burrows, Attorney-
at-Law
While I agree with Bob that controllers do have the authority to issue a
”direct” to a pilot who can only fly it with a non-certified unit, given what
this paragraph suggests that the author is thinking (and presumably has
been instructed),I predict that it is only a matter of time until some boy
scout at a FSDO or GATO violates a pilot for flying such a direct IFR.
And I doubt the disclosure in the ’remarks’ section will help since as we
know, the controller probably will not have that section of the flight plan
in front of him.
Be careful,

Far be it from me to ever argue with an Officer Of The Court!

I think the statement our barrister is quoting is eminently correct. Remember that I
said to always tell the truth. Never file as ”/I” or ”/G” if you don’t have the appropriate
equipment. Personally I would not file for a direct clearance if it was not something that
I could do legally with the equipment certificated in the aircraft.
However, if the controller offers a direct routing I would take it. He has the authority
to authorize that flight. Should a negotiation take place wherein you ask the controller
if he would be able to authorize a direct route from your present position to some point
downline and he asks what equipment you might have that would allow you to navigate
to that point, I would tell him what type of VFR navigation equipment was available.
I think it is a true statement to say that all laws are arguable. There are many interpre-
tations applied to ’most every action we take with an airplane or other flying machine.
Almost all of our actions could be cited by some very zealous ”representative of the
administrator” as violating some rule or procedure.
Once again, I would not recommend ever filing an IFR flight plan and telling the briefer
or writing on the flight plan that you intend to navigate by utilizing a non-certified piece

947
5.8. GPS-REGS CHAPTER 5. GPS

of equipment. But there is nothing wrong with noting in the remarks section that you
have such equipment on board the aircraft.
An argument could be made that you intend to fly a direct route by computing and
following a course based on deductive reasoning. I think that is somewhat Clintonesque
and is stretching the point to where it wouldn’t hold much water in most of the congested
airspace in the lower forty-eight. That is why I would file my flight plan based on
following a course navigable by certified equipment on the aircraft.
The statement from the FSDO is:
”Remember, only equipment that has been approved for IFR use can be used to file and
fly IFR. It is the pilot’s responsibility to ensure they [sic] have the required equipment
on board to meet legal flying requirements.”
Once the aircraft is airborne and operating in the IFR system, if the controller offers
and the pilot accepts a direct clearance to a point beyond the capabilities of the certified
equipment on board the aircraft, that would have to be done on the controllers authority
to authorize direct flight while in radar coverage or his acceptance of a DR flight path.
In either case, if the pilot is aided in following that course by observation of an onboard
VFR piece of equipment, it seems that the letter and the intent of the rules are being
followed.
While I think that doing so is safe and currently accepted as a viable procedure by the
nation’s controllers, I would have to agree that there is always the possibility of someone
trying to make, quite literally, A Federal Case out of it.
As Ken says, Be careful,
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981024 234323 msg06254.tex]

948
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.9. GPS-RULES

5.9 GPS-RULES

949
5.9. GPS-RULES CHAPTER 5. GPS

Nav Data
Wed, 5 Jan 2000 22:19:23

In a message dated 1/5/00 7:11:20 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I questioned the local Faa rep. and he says it’s legal to use and fly IFR GPS
With out of date database as long as you have up to date charts on board
for the route and approaches you are using. Cheers Carmine Pecoraro

Good Evening Carmine,

Unfortunately, very few of the local FSDO folks are really up to speed on the rules
concerning the use GPS with or without a current data base. If you could get an
opinion from your local FED in writing that would be great!
I think if it came down to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the Approved
Airplane Flight Manual Supplement language would prevail. The sad thing about that
is very few of the manuals are properly written! I would suggest reading your manual
carefully and complying therewith always keeping in mind what you will say at the
hearing. If you are confident enough in your interpretation of the guidance given, press
on!
Every supplement that I have read allows pilot evaluation of the currency of the data
for enroute use. The only ones that allow pilot determination for approach use, that I
have seen, are UPS manuals written after August of 1997. All of the II Morrow/UPS
sets are eligible for that language, but they must be rewritten and approved before that
provision may be used.
I have been told that some local FSDO inspectors wouldn’t even approve the sets for
enroute use, but I have never actually seen such an example. May be an Old Wives
Tale.
I am quite confident that my interpretation of those rules was the one accepted by the
Washington, DC powers that be as of a few months ago. You never know when things
may change, for better or for worse!
The FAA runs on interpretations!!
The reason the GPS for ADF function requires a current database is because the fellows
who wrote it didn’t find out that most sets (if not all) don’t require a current card for
enroute use until the day they had to send their data in for processing. Rather than
re-evaluate the data, they added the provision requiring the current card. I tried to get
it changed and thought things were going quite well, but I wasn’t able to get sufficient
support from the AOPA or industry folks to get it done and I gave up.
That is just the way things work, right or wrong!
Happy Skies,

950
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.9. GPS-RULES

Old Coot Bob

[ARTICLES/20000105 221923 msg00292.tex]

951
5.10. GPS CHAPTER 5. GPS

5.10 GPS

952
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.10. GPS

IFR GPS Navigation

Mon, 12 Jan 1998 10:46:50

Good Morning Dave,

In a message dated 98-01-08 16:28:55 EST, you write:

I find IFR approved GPS a fantastic addition to my capability.

I guess we are preaching to the choir, aren’t we?

The sets are all fantastic, even the hand helds. My fear is that the powers in the FAA
and the associated Canadian authorities are trying to decide what we need based on
their own preferences of equipment that they like.
I would rather that they certify the accuracy and integrity of the system and stay out
of the human factors and methods of use of the equipment.
I prefer that we users and the market place determine the presentation and operation
of the various sets. I want a moving map but I don’t want it to be required. If someone
prefers to manually select radials and bearings externally to the set, let them do it,
but don’t require that capability on all installations. Every addition beyond the bare
minimum is an extra cost item.
The best thing that can happen is for more people to get involved so that the input
can come from actual IFR users like yourself who buy the equipment with their own
hard-earned dollars.
Even the most dedicated public servant will never have the same viewpoint that a regular
user of the system has.
I am not a basher of the FAA. They have a very difficult position. Our elected represen-
tatives in DCA want to ring their necks every time an accident occurs and there is very
little incentive for any FAA employee to put his signature on any piece of paper that
says ”yes, let’s do it”. I think they do an excellent job considering the present attitude
of our nation toward finding someone to blame for all occurrences.
Having said that, I think we must remain vigilant and continue to press for the simplest
and least costly system to be approved. The rest can be provided by the market forces.
Very few of us fly an airplane equipped with only one instrument power source or with
only one navigation radio or with only one comm unit and yet that is all that is required
for IFR flight.
I think that is the proper regulatory position. It provides room for the user to adapt
the equipment to his individual requirements, competency and risk tolerance.
The system has worked in the past and I feel it will continue to work if the FEDs
(including Congress) will just let it do so.
Thanks again for the comment and keep telling your friends of the joys of GPS.

953
5.10. GPS CHAPTER 5. GPS

Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19980112 104650 msg00254.tex]

954
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.10. GPS

IFR GPS Utility

Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:19:00

In a message dated 2/26/01 7:07:22 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob, I guess the best solution is to get an IFR Appch GPS. Better start
saving my pennies now. Maybe I can sell an ex-wife or a kid.....

Good Morning Jerry,

If you do decide that the operational advantages of an IFR approved GPS are worth
the funds to be expended, I think you would be happiest with the approach version.
The overall cost for the approach box installed and approved is so little more than the
enroute only approval installation that I would recommend the extra expenditure.
The other side of the coin is whether or not you really need the ability to execute those
relatively low approaches!
The vast majority of the Bonanzas flown around the lower forty-eight never see anything
much below VFR minima on the approach. Most destinations have an approach to
reasonable minima that can be handled with nothing more than a VOR.
If your occasional destination requires a DME, ADF or GPS to execute an approach, The
IFR GPS starts to make a little more sense. However, if your need is only occasional,
you can still file for those destinations, provided that you have a good ironclad alternate
with minima suitable for an alternate using only the VOR.
The move to an IFR box, either enroute/terminal or approach certified requires a com-
mitment to the ongoing expense of updates and that can be a killer! Hopefully, that cost
will be addressed by AOPA and others, but right now it seems to require an expenditure
of $350 to $650 per year to feed the slot.
Now, to be realistic, if you are based somewhere that has only a GPS approach or if
the local field needs an ADF or a DME to execute the approaches and you tend to fly
when the destination weather is well below VFR minima, the rationalization of making
the expenditure comes much easier.
Maybe you could convince the ex-wife that you need to spend the money to gain more
consistency in your life so that you can make more money which she can then go to
court and try to get her hands on!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010226 101900 msg04643.tex]

955
5.10. GPS CHAPTER 5. GPS

Mailing List
Thu, 29 Jan 1998 10:36:00

Good Morning Larry,

In a message dated 98-01-29 06:50:52 EST, you write:

Hello Bob,
Sometime in the past didn’t you post an address for GPS site or mail list?
Please post again with a short description. I missed it the first time.
Regards, Larry Robbins, 1/29/98, 5:46:04 AM

Ah Yes! My favorite subject.

The site name is GPS for AERO and it is sponsored by the University of New Brunswick,
Canada.
There is an archive available so that you may peruse what has been posted in the past
and decide whether you wish to partcipate or not.
I urge you to check out the site. You can look it over without signing up at: http://listserv.unb.ca/archives/
aero.html
Some dumb stuff, but lots of good also. Check the months of December and January.
There is posting in the December archive from George Dewar titled ”Welcome” and it
states the intent of the site and how to sign up.
I just tried to hook up and was unable to do so. This has happened in the past and it
usually straightens out in a day or two. If you don’t get to it right away, try again soon.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980129 103600 msg00632.tex]

956
CHAPTER 5. GPS 5.10. GPS

Nav Data
Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:48:38

In a message dated 1/27/01 11:13:57 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

The POH supplement for the GX60 says that ”IFR enroute and terminal
navigation is prohibited unless the pilot verifies the currency of the data
base or verifies each selected waypoint for accuracy by reference to current
approved data.” When I purchased the GX60, one of the strong deciding
factors was the ability to use an expired database if necessary.

Good Morning Ray,

The language you quote above is that used by the FAA in the guidance AC (I believe it
is AC 90-94) that they issued for all manufacturers and others to use before any GPS
sets were approved for IFR use.
Enroute and Terminal operations do not include approaches.
I don’t have the precise definitions available right now, but the following is my interpre-
tation. Hopefully, someone will chime in with corrections and a reference.
Enroute is considered along the airways or direct routes between points of the airway
system.
Terminal operations include the transition routes, and such, which take the flight from
the Enroute (airway) structure to the vicinity of the FAF if an approach has an FAF.
Approach is that portion beyond the Terminal segment that allows for the actual down
through procedure. If there is a FAF, that is the start of the Approach segment. If
there is no FAF, then the Approach segment starts over the last facility or fix prior to
the approach descent procedure.
The first time I heard about the Apollo approval to legally use an outdated datacard for
an approach was at the Wichita ABS convention in 1997. The rep there told me about
it and offered to send a copy of the Flight Manual Supplement which they had gotten
approved for the II Morrow Apollo NMS. He also gave me a copy of a pamphlet which
told of the method you described as one way of complying with verification of the data
for approach use.
I asked whether the approval was to be extended to all of the II Morrow units or if it
was specific to the NMS. He wasn’t sure, but gave me a contact at the factory.
I called and was informed that it did apply to all of their products, but that it would be
necessary for the individual FAA Approved Flight Manual Supplement to be adjusted,
submitted to, and approved by, the FAA before that function could be used.
The new language in the NMS manual is as follows:

957
5.10. GPS CHAPTER 5. GPS

”6. GPS Approaches (APR) Instrument approaches may be conducted only using in-
strument approaches loaded from the Apollo NMS equipment database into the active
flight plan. Approach data must be current. The Pilot/Crew must verify that the Apollo
NMS approach data is current.”
Prior to that language change, it stated that the set had to have a current datacard.
If your Flight Manual Supplement does not have language similar to the language for
the NMS, chances are that you are not legal to use the outdated card.
I would check with UPSAT directly for the latest word.
Unfortunately, most install shops have a boiler plate approval that they know will slide
through their local FSDO and don’t do as good a job as they might to customize the
paper work to the greatest advantage of the user.
If your set was installed before August of 1997, it is very doubtful that it would have
the new language. After that time, it was eligible to use that language, but it would
have to be inserted in the paper work and approved by the FAA.
If your shop was sharp, they should have used it, but who knows! In addition, I have been
told some local FSDO inspectors have refused to approve the new language regardless
of the approval UPSAT obtained from their supervising FAA inspector!
Nothing is easy.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010128 104838 msg02062.tex]

958
Chapter 6

HISTORY

959
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Airliner A/P and Loss of Control Authority

Fri, 6 Aug 1999 23:02:57

In a message dated 8/6/99 8:49:07 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

I have more curiousity than knowledge , and this may be beside the point
, but , if the autopilot works so well , why don’t they use it all the time ?
or do they ?

Good Evening Mr. Jordan.

It wasn’t that the autopilot necessarily worked better, it was a matter of what controls
were available.
First it is reasonable to look at the culture of the day. It was generally considered that
direct control by the operator at the controls was the most reliable control available.
Whenever a control anomaly would occur, it was generally considered good practice to
turn off the autopilot and hand fly the aircraft until things were sorted out.
Control systems have developed on modern aircraft to the point where that may no
longer be the consensus position.
In the case being discussed here, the hydraulic control valves were mounted on or rather
incorporated in the master control module. They are actuated by small cables which run
from the cockpit area to the rear of the aircraft where the module is located. When the
cargo door blew out, the floor of the cabin on which the cables were mounted deformed
and the cables were rendered unusable.
The autopilot operated the hydraulic module valves electrically through wiring that
was routed along the top of the cabin and those wires were unaffected by the collapse
of the floor. Thus the autopilot had control of the hydraulic system even though the
cables connected to the control column were unusable. Interestingly, the DC-10 had
a rudimentary Control Wheel Steering system (I guess it still does) which relied on
pressure sensors in the control column to transmit the signals to the hydraulic control
module. That meant that you could control the aircraft through Control Wheel Steering
even though the column could not be moved!
It could also be flown via the normal full autopilot functions, but the autoland on the
DC-10 left a lot to be desired.
At least that is the way I remember it. Ralph and all of the other young bucks may
have a more recent view of the system.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990806 230257 msg06744.tex]

960
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Airliner Engine Operation and CHT

Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:20:25

In a message dated 1/28/01 10:49:56 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I have run into some old Flight Engineers who rant and rave about 190C
(or something else) being some sort of magic number, and they will bust
their tails to maintain that within a degree or two, constantly fiddling
with the cowl flaps, mixtures, power settings, etc. Sure smells like yet
another OWT, to me (Old Wives’ Tale). I know of NO data to suggest any
one temperature is better than another, within that broad range between
maybe 100C and 200C, either from an engine longevity or engine efficiency
standpoint.

Good Evening John,

We also had some Flight Engineers who had a fetish about maintaining fairly high CHTs
on the big round radials. I think it stemmed from a desire to show how important it
was to have an engineer on board since the DC-6 was originally certified as a two man
crew.
The DC-7 had the much more critical R-3350. We all tried to fly it very close to the
companies recommendation.
The company recommendation for cylinder head temp was relatively high, I think around
195 or maybe even 200 or so, but that was because each degree of additional cowl flap
opening on all four engines slowed us down a couple of knots!
In fact, the recommended temperature was raised a few months after we got the first
airplanes just to help with the eight hour ”coast to coast” problem. (But, that is another
story!)
The insistence of our keeping the engines up near the maximum desired temperature
was not because the engine needed to be operated that warm, but to make the airplane
go as fast as possible on the fuel being used.
What we need on the Bonanza series is better control of the air going through the engine
compartment. Read as more efficient cowl flaps! (Yet another story!)
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010129 002025 msg02108.tex]

961
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Airliners and Hydraulic Failure

Fri, 6 Aug 1999 14:10:21

In a message dated 7/23/99 5:48:23 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

There is absolutely no-way you could have a complete hydraulic failure in

an L1011.

Good Afternoon Mr. Coleman,

I just can’t let this one go by, I think you will find that a Delta flight departing LAX
had a hydraulic problem which precluded any control of the elevator. I don’t remember
whether he had any control of the other surfaces or not. The Captain quickly learned how
to fly the airplane using differential power and declared that he was going to attempt
a ditching offshore near LAX. After a few more minutes, he had developed enough
technique via engine thrust control that he decided to take the aircraft to Edwards for
the landing. As arrangements were being made, he continued to develop his technique
and after some 45 minutes, felt he was able to control the aircraft well enough to take
it into LAX. Some of those details may be in error but the basic story is correct. He
had lost aerodynamic control of the airplane, but unlike the poor souls at UAL, he had
three good engines to work with. Nevertheless, a masterful performance.
There was an American DC-10 that lost all control of the hydraulics following the
collapse of a cabin floor following the failure of a baggage door. He managed to handle it
well enough by differential power that he got it back on the ground at DTW. Incidentally,
had he turned on and used the autopilot, he would have had complete control of the
aircraft hydraulically. Things happen and no one knows it all!
It shows what a pilot can do if he has to, but it also shows that nothing is absolutely
foolproof and there is always a possibility of complete failure of any system.
I am sure that many have mentioned by now that the DC-10 does have a RAT in all
models. My recollection is that we had to maintain at least 160 knots to make it work
right.
They are both fine airplanes, but I doubt if there is any substantial difference in the
safety records. A weak point in the DC-10 was the location of a master hydraulic module
in the tail section. It was a marvelous design, very light weight and the designers felt
that it just could not allow a complete loss of all control, yet it happened when the
disintegrating engine threw shrapnel through that fail-safe device.
I always thought the 747 was a safer layout with all of the components scattered about
around the airplane, yet JAL lost one when the rudder was blown off and since all of
the hydraulic systems had components in the tail, all control was lost on that aircraft
as well.
A Caravelle was lost in Europe when a tire blew and knocked out the hydraulics, that

962
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

resulted in shrapnel guards in the wheel well and two more hydraulic systems on the
later Caravelles. Don’t you imagine SUD EST thought the original system was built so
that it could not possibly have a complete hydraulic failure?
The primary reason the 1011 never made it as a successful airliner is the same one that
has plagued all of the Lockheed designs. They are marvels of sophisticated engineering
that turn out to be heavier than the competition. Light weight means more payload
and that is where the money is.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS We had hydraulic fuses on the DC-3 as well, some places they will work and other
places they will not. I believe it depends on the flow rate and volume of fluid required
for actuation of the device being controlled.
[ARTICLES/19990806 141021 msg06714.tex]

963
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Aspen Operation
Sun, 1 Apr 2001 09:29:06

In a message dated 4/1/01 7:13:54 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

I was there 20 years ago. It is my memory that the runway is basically at

the end of a canyon with a mountain on the south end of the runway. A
go around is not a option unless you can turn around in the length of the
runway, and then you really have to stay close because of a big hill on one
side.

Good Morning All,

Just as a historical reference concerning the Aspen operation, you might be interested
to know that when Aspen Airways was operating Convair 340s in and out of Aspen,
they did land to the northwest on runway 33 most of the time.
That was the only way they could comply with the FAA requirements for a single engine
go around and still carry any economically viable payload.
They also had an instrument approach procedure that was theirs alone, not available to
the general population.
I don’t know what auxiliary guidance they used, but I think it started out as a homing
beacon and I believe they had a private localizer for a while.
I don’t remember the details, but a couple of things stick in my mind. One is that they
did have an approach that made the descent from the southeast. That one had such
a high MDA that it was basically a VFR operation, somewhat similar to the current
Roaring Fork Visual leg that comes through, or near, Independence pass.
The other approach was also almost a visual one, but it relied on getting down to the
minimum altitude along V8 near Glenwood Springs and heading up the valley to Aspen.
There was a series of step down fixes along V-8 that provided a much lower minimum
enroute altitude in that area than is presently available.
Once they got up to the airport, they proceeded on to the southeast and made a course
reversal in the valley to align themselves with runway 33. I know they used full flap
during the course reversal, to get the speed a slow as possible, and the rumor at the
time was that they had approval from the FEDs to use up to a forty-five degree bank,
if required.
UAL had some pilots furloughed at the time and one of them took a job with Aspen.
When he was taken up to Aspen to get checked out on the course reversal maneuver, he
quit!
Must have been a real ”E” ticket ride!
In order to accommodate the Convair, the northwest end of the runway had a gravel

964
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

overrun section added. The FAA did not allow the use of reversing for runway cer-
tification tests in those days, so the proving flights had to be done with brakes only.
Even with new brakes and tires, they blew them all during the certification tests. The
aircraft did get stopped on the overrun, so the operation was approved. By using heavy
reversing for normal landings, it was possible to get the airplane stopped with light to
moderate braking.
The operation with the piston powered Convairs didn’t last long. My recollection is
that they were replaced fairly quickly with ones that had been converted to turbo prop
power plants.
By the way, Aspen Airways started out using DC-3s with Jato bottles on the belly. The
Jatos weren’t fired unless an engine was lost, but that was how they met the go around
requirement. The DC-3s landed up hill and took off downhill, just like most of the rest
of us!
The Jato firing lasted about fourteen seconds. That was enough get the gear up and
attain sufficient altitude to make the one-eighty back toward Glenwood Springs
No bearing on the current accident, but I thought some might like to know what has
been done.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010401 092906 msg06996.tex]

965
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Bonanza Super V
Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:38:50

In a message dated 2/7/01 9:03:14 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I thought I saw a picture of a twin ”V-tail” Bonanza in either ABS, or

AOPA or Custom planes.
Anybody else seen this animal.
I’m on the line with the local airport crowd on this. Gonna have to buy
lunch soon if I can’t produce the evidence..

Good Morning Scott,

I believe you are referring to the ”Super V.”
It was a modification of the early V tail that was originally STCd by some folks out in
Oakland.
I am a little fuzzy on the corporate details and who owned what, but the STC, at least
for a while, belonged to some folks up in Canada and some of them were produced either
in Buffalo or in Canada near there. I believe that company was associated with the old
Fleet Corporation.
Every one of the Super Vs that I have seen had terrible workmanship and looked very
doggie.
I doubt if there were more than a dozen or so conversions performed.
There has been one at Oshkosh and Sun n Fun the last couple of years and it looks just
as beat up and crummy as any that I have ever seen.
Beech squashed the effort by developing the Travel Air.
The moral?
Don’t mess with the big boys.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010207 103850 msg03051.tex]

966
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

CQ From an Airplane
Wed, 30 Dec 1998 09:46:05

In a message dated 12/30/98 2:31:12 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

As a Ham Radio Operator I still HF radio in my plane. I also have

VHF/UHF in my plane. Don’t get to use it much but do some operat-
ing when someone helps with the flying...

Hi Lee,
Another comment if you don’t mind the ancient history.
I had a friend many years ago who was an avid ham. He rigged up a rig in his OX-5
powered Jenny, flew it up over Elmhurst airport (Suburban Chicago) as high as it would
go and then shut down the engine so as to get rid of the electrical disturbances from the
engine.
He would then send ”CQ from an airplane” (via code of course) and log as many contacts
as possible until he got low enough that he had to get back to flying and land the airplane.
That was long before even my ancient days, but he loved to tell the story. Being a ham
seems to involve a lot of fun!
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19981230 094605 msg07974.tex]

967
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Caravelle
Tue, 17 Oct 2000 08:43:10

In a message dated 10/16/00 11:58:00 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

They seemed to have a very different approach to the jet design problem
than any of the other manufacturers.
So, which is more fun to fly- the Caravelle or the Bo?

Good Morning Bill,

That’s kinda like asking if one likes Blondes or Brunettes. They are both wonderful!
Like the Bonanza, it is extremely easy to fly, almost makes the landing all by itself and
has very honest stall and handling characteristics. The Bonanza needs that little extra
wiggle compensation technique.
As you note, the design was a little different.
It was very much inside the state of the art. The primary electrical was still DC. Almost
all of the components of all systems were ones that had already been used on other
jets or piston aircraft. The sweep back of the wing was almost exactly the same as the
leading edge taper on the DC-3.
The nose section was purchased from Dehaviland (sp?) and was from the ill fated Comet
series (including the section whose failure doomed the Comet career as an airliner). The
landing gear also was taken from the Comet. I don’t remember if it was actually identical
or just an adapted design.
The redundancy was very high and the systems were easy to understand, but there were
a lot of them.
The transition training course was seven to eight weeks in length. The oral exam gen-
erally lasted about eight hours.
If we had been required to know the 747 as well as we learned the Caravelle, the transition
course would have taken a year or more!
Unlike the Bonanza, the airplane was very inefficient.
It had a higher dirty stalling speed than the 727-100, was slower in cruise, didn’t fly as
high and had a lower rate of climb. It carried half as many people and yet it burned the
same amount of fuel on a trip from Chicago to New York!
But you could close the throttles and glide like down to a landing just as comfortably as
any Beechcraft. Of course, if you did misjudge that easy approach and wanted to add
some power, it took fourteen seconds for the engine to accelerate from idle to full power.
There was no usable thrust for the first ten of those fourteen seconds.

968
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

The 727 would go from idle to full thrust in less than four seconds and had usable thrust
in around two seconds.
We used full flaps and full speed brake on the approach so that we could keep the
power up around seventy to eighty percent. To go around, we relied on reducing the
drag. Bring up the flaps and retract the speed brakes and she would go around without
touching the throttles. It was characteristics like that which led the airline industry
to adopt the now almost universal stabilized high drag approach. That technique was
rarely used in the Days Of Yore.
Yes, it was a wonderful airplane to fly, but nowhere near as efficient as the Bonanza!
Thanks for asking.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001017 084310 msg14962.tex]

969
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Certificate Tests From the Ground?

Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:28:05

In a message dated 1/24/01 1:54:01 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Sorry, I don’t see it. When George said ”Glider,” and you posted yours, it
triggered a very dim memory that this may have been possible back in the
dim past, but I don’t think it can be done today. I could be wrong, I don’t
examine in gliders.
Interesting question.
Best... John Deakin

Good Morning John And All,

It was possible in the past. I don’t have data other than my memory, so consider the
source!
I recall that shortly after W.W.II, somewhere around 1950 I think, there was a young
lad who showed up at the local CAA (predecessor to the FAA) office with a Douglas
DC-3 for his Private Pilot flight check.
It seems that his father owned the three. It was used as a corporate aircraft and flown
by a professional pilot. In those days, it was not uncommon for the DC-3 to be flown
single pilot, so the lad had spent a lot of time in the right front seat. He did so well, that
the pilot, who held an instructor rating (no instructor certificate in those days) started
letting him fly from the left seat.
A student certificate was obtained for the young man and he eventually soloed the three
and completed all of the required training in that aircraft.
The CAA Inspector had no DC-3 time at all and didn’t feel up to riding in a Douglas
Racer with a kid (on his seventeenth birthday no less!) so he elected to monitor things
from the ground.
The certificate was issued.
The event was reported in most of the aviation rags of the day. Maybe some of you
computer whizzes could search the media of the day and prove me right or wrong?
Back in the Ancient Days of Yore, when I was an FAA Designated Glider Pilot Examiner,
my recollection is that I had the authority to issue a certificate by observation from the
ground, but I THINK, not sure, that I was supposed to fly with the applicant in an
airplane which had stall characteristics similar to the glider and observe stall recoveries
and recovery from incipient spin situations.
I also recall that there was a change a few years ago which would no longer allow me
the option.

970
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

It has been at least twenty years since I quit being an examiner, so all of this is getting
a little hazy!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010124 102805 msg01642.tex]

971
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Continental Engine Flight Test

Tue, 30 May 2000 23:41:34

In a message dated 5/30/00 10:13:53 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

This actually seemed like a good low risk way to flight test a new power-
plant. Redundancy enough to get you back to base if the wonder machine
stops whizzing. No asymmetry to fret about if it happens at take off. Big
enough plane to carry all of the instrumentation (but, a Quickie could do
that anymore...). A known, if not too fabulous airframe.
Cheers!
Bill

Good Evening Bill,

Just thought you might like to know how Continental did it in the ’Good Old Days’ of
Muskegon, Michigan.
They had a nice old Model 18 Beechcraft with two very comforting R-985s out in the
usual position.
On the nose, instead of baggage, fuel and or radar, they had a nice big flat firewall on
which they mounted and faired in all of the bullet proof engines that were developed in
those halcyon days of yesteryear!!
Must have been a very comforting feeling for the aviators.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000530 234134 msg08911.tex]

972
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Continental History
Wed, 31 May 2000 10:20:15

In a message dated 5/31/00 8:38:33 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob, so Continental started out in Muskegon, Michigan? When did they

move to Mobile, Alabama?

Good Morning Jerry,

The flip answer would be: Just before they started to build crummy engines!
Actually, I don’t remember when the move was made. If my memory is at all valid,
Continental Motors was a basic Detroit corporation which made lot’s of engines for
various uses. One of their most successful products was the engine used in the original
”cast iron” Yellow Cabs which you young whipper snappers may remember seeing in
some very old movies.
I believe the Aircraft Engine Division was set up in Muskegon around the start of WWII,
but that could be totally in error. It may have been as early as the production of the
little 36/40 hp engine they built in the middle thirties. I think the move to Mobile was
around 1975. Hopefully someone much more knowledgeable than me will give us the
correct dates and history.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000531 102015 msg08923.tex]

973
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

DC-3 Two Man Crew

Thu, 24 Aug 2000 15:33:50

In a message dated 8/24/00 1:27:33 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

the Twin Beech does not appear in the report. Struck by taxiing or landing
aircraft. Interesting that there was reportedly only one person on board
the landing DC-3, which requires two pilots.

Good Afternoon Tom,

Actually, the DC-3 does not always require two pilots. It depends on the certificate
and regulations under which the aircraft is being operated. At the time that I was
flying them for United, our specifications noted that we required a two pilot crew for
scheduled operations and a single pilot crew for ferry test and training. There was a
UAL note suggesting that a flight operations knowledgeable person be carried in the
right seat if one was available. They described a flight operations knowledgeable person
as a mechanic, dispatcher or other such person. It was not unusual for one to be flown
solo.
Some years later when a few of us were operating a DC-3 as a family/club airplane, we
were authorized to fly it single pilot, but were unable to find an insurance company who
would insure us that way.
Remmert Werner of STL was a big modifier of DC-3s and they regularly flew them single
pilot until they ran up against the same insurance problem which stopped us from doing
single pilot operations.
The DC-3 is an easy one man machine, but in both it and the Twin Beech, visibility in
a right turn is a problem.
Of course, if the airplane was not being operated for the purpose of flight, just taxiing
for a reposition, one crew member can easily handle it and there is no certificate of any
kind required by the FEDs.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000824 153350 msg12515.tex]

974
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

DC-3 Two Man Crew

Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:48:21

In a message dated 8/24/00 3:07:19 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

I assumed (bad word, I know) that the -3 weighs more than 12,500 pounds
at max gross and therefore requires an ATP and a two-pilot crew (like the
KA-350, for instance).

Good Afternoon Tom,

Your assumption isn’t bad! The DC-3 has various gross weights approved, but the most
common one is 25,200 without boots and 25,346 with.
It was originally approved with a one man crew for non aircarrier use and, to my knowl-
edge, has never had a mandatory recertification. There was a Special Federal Air Reg-
ulation approval available that allowed a gross weight of 26,900 if the operator agreed
to use balanced field lengths and a two man crew. Back in the mid to late sixties, the
FAA sent a letter to all of the insurance providers that stated that the FAA thought
the airplane should be operated with a two man crew. No recertification was done, but
most of the insurance companies decided to cease issuing policies if the operator did not
use a two person crew.
It is one of those cases where one or two folks in the FAA can effectively make a change
in how we do things without following the accepted procedures for rule making. There
weren’t enough of us doing the single pilot thing to make an effective fight and we lost
that privilege by default!
When the DC-3 and the Lockheed Lodestars were the pride of the corporate fleets, quite
a few of them were operated, at least on occasion, with a single pilot crew. By the time
the FAA issued their notice to the insurance companies, most of the big boys had gone to
the jets and we didn’t have much support. I don’t think the rules were ever changed, but
they might have been. In any case, without insurance, it’s tough to operate a business.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000824 174821 msg12525.tex]

975
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Diesel Engines?
Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:39:09

In a message dated 4/20/00 2:53:23 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I did, Tom. But, I’m always a bit amused when someone promises a super
engine, when the wizards in Stutgart, or Detroit, with their production
volumes can’t deliver the same thing. By the way, my wife reminds me
that VW does have a great small diesel. She swears by the little motor in
her Golf, TDI.

Good Afternoon Tom and Alan

Packard built a successful aircraft diesel in the thirties. The Germans used diesels on
airships. There may have been others. The light weight gasoline engines may have been
more cost effective at the time for aircraft uses, but if we can’t get gasoline, something
just a little less efficient than what we now utilize may be very welcome.
Don’t give up on the diesel!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000420 163909 msg06781.tex]

976
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Diesel Engines?
Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:55:20

In a message dated 4/20/00 5:03:51 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

In any case, diesels are indeed generally heavier and require a more robust
(and probably coolant-based) cooling system. They’re also most efficient
at a fixed RPM

Good Evening Steve,

The diesels have generally been heavier and I don’t have current data available on the
1930s Packard diesel weight, but it was competitive with gasoline engines of the day. It
was an air-cooled radial. My recollection is that it was an eight cylinder unit. Packard
decided not to produce it in quantity because they felt the market was already well
covered by P&W and Wright.
I believe the German engines were water cooled, but the extreme economy they delivered
made the slightly heavier weight acceptable for the long duration flights of the lighter
than air ships on which they were used.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000420 185520 msg06791.tex]

977
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Diesel Engines?
Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:41:07

In a message dated 4/20/00 9:54:08 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

The vibration on the crankshaft from the enormously sharp and high peak
pressure pulse from the diesel engine combustion event is going to play the
devil with almost any prop now available and I suspect that these engines
will take a major re-design effort in order to get props that will work and
live with the harsh environment.

Good Evening George,

Based on my knowledge of the thoroughness with which you gather your data, I have
no doubt that your facts are correct concerning the current crop of diesel engines, but I
wonder how that fits with some of the facts I remember from my far distant past.
I recall being taught many years ago that one of the advantages of a diesel engine was
that the power pulse could be very closely controlled by judicious adjustment of the
timing of the injection and rate of flow of the fuel even to the point of making a more
broad and extended power pulse than was possible with the gasoline engine. Was my
perception of what I was hearing inaccurate or is the efficiency of such fuel directed
combustion so poor that such control is not currently used?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000420 234107 msg06812.tex]

978
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Diesel Engines?
Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:02:38

In a message dated 4/20/00 11:46:17 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Old Bob is very correct.... I just completed a three-year stint at Detroit

Diesel Corporation(DDC).

Good Morning Matt,

It is comforting to hear that some of that stuff I absorbed fifty plus years ago is still
valid!
I tried to find some data on that old Packard engine in the type specification pages. I
guess they have it stuck away where we less than proficient computer users can’t locate
it. Maybe Cy Galley could find it for us.
My recollection was that the weight of that engine was very competitive with the gasoline
engines of the day. I have no doubt that if adequate funding is applied, a suitable diesel
could be produced using either air or liquid cooling.
I believe it was Alan Bradley who mentioned that diesel fuel weighs more than gasoline.
That is an advantage, not a disadvantage. It means that we can pack more power in a
smaller space.
Diesels have historically produced more power per pound of fuel than have the gasoline
engines.
While at Sun ’n Fun, I had the pleasure of watching George Braly demonstrate the
excellent results that he is attaining with his electronic ignition system.
It was controlling the power pulse so well that he could introduce substandard fuel
and the spark timing would change rapidly enough that no damage occurred. He was
showing so many good things that I couldn’t absorb them all, but I do believe one of
the fuels on which he was successfully running the engine was diesel fuel!
The internal combustion engine, whether the fire is lit by a spark or by Doctor Diesel’s
method seems to have a secure future as long as people like George, you and your
compatriots in Detroit are willing to spend the time, effort and funds to adapt it to the
use we envision.
As always, the drawback is the difficulty we have in getting things approved for use in
aviation and those difficulties are largely driven by our litigious society wherein we have
all been led to believe that we are assured that the powers in Washington will see to it
that we are protected from cradle to grave.
Fortunately for us, George works on both sides of the fence! Hopefully he will figure out
away to get around those lawyer inspired obstacles and get his ignition module approved
for our use at a competitive price.

979
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Between your diesels and George’s ignition, something ought to work!

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000421 100238 msg06831.tex]

980
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Diesel Engines?
Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:25:41

In a message dated 4/21/00 10:10:09 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Here is a site for Woolson, the designer... http://home.earthlink.net/ ralph-

cooper/pimage24.htm
Hi Cy,
What an interesting site!
The Packard was used a lot more than I had realized! It is hard to believe
that it was never certified, but it appears to have been dropped before the
act of 1936 which, I believe, was the time when things got so formalized.
Must have been when the lawyers arrived on the scene!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000421 112541 msg06844.tex]

981
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

First Beech? High Wing Beech?

Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:15:50

Hi Paul,
In a message dated 97-10-28 10:26:29 EST, you write:

primarily because Beech hasn’t built any high wings.

Yes and no,

Beech Aircraft Corporation has built a few high wings but I don’t think any
of them made it to production. As I recall, the the four engine commuter
airplane was a high wing.
Beyond that. Walter Beech was the chief driving force of the Travelair
Corporation and built several very fine high wing airplanes.
The first Beechcraft was called the model 17 because it’s design was started
while Walter and Ted Wells were still with the Travlelair division of Curtis
Wright and was the 17th design in the series that included the high wing
record setting Woolaroc (not sure I spelled that right).
Picky, picky, picky!!!
Yours,
Love em all,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19971028 111550 msg02238.tex]

982
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

G Model Twin
Wed, 7 Feb 2001 23:01:14

In a message dated 2/7/01 7:24:01 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I beleive that Beech converted a G model to a twin as a proof

of concept and later converted it back to a single. I understand
it is still flying as a single G model. Cheers Carmine Pecoraro

Good Evening Carmine,

It was more than a ”proof of concept.” It was the actual prototype that
they used for the certification flight tests.
All of the components were not as strong as the production airplanes, but
that was compensated for in the data submissions.
John Allen was the manager of plant two at the time. (or close to that,
don’t hold my feet to the fire on that one). The thing was disassembled,
usable parts put to good use and the rest left to gather dust. John bought
the fuselage and some other parts, I don’t remember whether he used the
prototype wings or not. In any case he scrounged and purchased enough
pieces to get it recertified and the airplane was still active a couple of years
ago. We camped next to it at Sun ’n Fun some time ago.
While it was strictly John’s deal, (there was no factory involvement at all)
it didn’t hurt that he was something of a big wheel.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010207 230114 msg03104.tex]

983
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Geraed Lycoming Engine

Thu, 15 Mar 2001 22:59:42

In a message dated 3/15/01 9:41:06 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

My Dad tells me this is about the same engine put in the

Queenair and that they were %$#@ to keep from tearing
apart. I believe it is geared and supercharged.

Good Evening Will,

The engines used in the Queen Air were all Lycomings. In addition to
being geared, they were supercharged via a mechanical blower on the rear
of the engine, not via an exhaust driven turbine system.
While I have absolutely no experience with the Continental GTSIO engine,
I think you will find that they are all turbo charged.
The Lycoming that was used on the Queen Air and many of the Twin
Bonanzas was a good engine IF it was flown everyday and operated as
designed. They didn’t take well to sitting around. Those that were flown
in the early commuter airline service did quite well, but they were flown
six to eight hours everyday.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010315 225942 msg05956.tex]

984
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Hangar Floor Covering

Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:06:14

Good Morning All,

This is a little off the Bonanza thread, but my excuse is that Bonanzas
appreciate a nice home!
First a little history. (Surprise! surprise!)
During the twenties and thirties a lot of the hangars built had wood plank
floors. They were very comfortable under foot, generally slip resistant and
things that were dropped tended to fare a lot better than things that are
dropped on concrete.
Many of the major factories that I visited during and after WW II had
floors that were made of end grain wood bricks set over a concrete base.
These were very nice and they must have worn well. Lift trucks and all
sorts of heavy equipment rolled around on them in good form and often. I
don’t know if those floors are still common, as I haven’t spent any time in
factories in the last fifty years.
The painted concrete floors seem to be quite high in cost and the paint
still doesn’t last very long. Things that are dropped break easily and the
concrete is still hard on these old feet.
I was wondering if any of our group have any experience using some of the
modern floor covering materials in a hangar. Maybe a layer of cork covered
by some sort of vinyl or one of the new modern thin wood floors?
Surely there are flooring experts among such an august group of fearless
airmen!
Waiting breathlessly for help,
Ancient Bob
[ARTICLES/19990116 110614 msg00635.tex]

985
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Instrument Panel Color

Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:16:20

In a message dated 12/14/00 9:12:03 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Old black, let alone crinkled reminds me of steam trains! In

my (not so humble) opinion, FLAT gray reflects no more light
and is MUCH more appealing. That how my last Bonanza
panel was painted, and what I am considering for my present
one.

Good Morning All,

For what it’s worth.
Many years ago in a land far, far away, there was an airline which was
operating Douglas DC-3s and DC-4s that had the traditional military flat
black instrument panels installed.
There came upon the scene new, powerful, high performing and pressurized
DC-6s. Now the minions of old felt that everything they had and everything
that they had been doing was obviously the best that any one could hope
for, but the extra speed and altitude capability of the DC-6 was a welcome
addition, except that those new, fast, powerful and pressurized airplanes
were equipped with instrument panels that had been painted a flat light
gray!
Now the airplanes were warmly welcomed, but our stalwart aviators con-
vinced the powers that be that those instrument panels would have to be
repainted to a flat black so as to be acceptable. The powers that be agreed
to do the job the first time the aircraft was in for refurbishment.
Well, I think you can see what is coming, after a few months of operating
the aircraft with the light colored panels, the attitude of the old timers
had changed so that they besieged the powers that be to not only leave
the light gray alone, but requested that the DC-3s and DC-4s have their
panels painted with the much more comfortable light gray.
Since I was a lowly DC-3 copilot at the time, I didn’t presume to voice any
opinion on such a weighty subject, but after as few months of operating with
both the flat black and the light gray, I found that I definitely preferred the
light gray. That was the color used by that mighty airline until the advent
of the glass cockpit on the 767 which had an instrument panel painted a
nice flat beige not unlike the color used in some of the later Bonanzas.
Now at the time of the introduction of the 767, a certain fat old guy who
flew a lot of Bonanzas happened to be the most senior pilot flying for that

986
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

airline who flew the new 767.

I thought the gray we had been using was great, but the beige was even
better.
If you like the look of the W.W.II flat black, by all means use it. I am sure
Walter Mitty would.
My vote is for a nice light color that harmonizes with the rest of the aircraft.
Just make sure it is flat and not gloss or semigloss.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS I put the crinkle finish right up there with tail skegs and turn coordi-
nators. If people want them, that is their right, but if any of those three
were on an airplane I purchased, they would all be removed immediately.
[ARTICLES/20001214 121620 msg17776.tex]

987
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Last Radio Range

Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:48:23

Good Morning Howard,

In a message dated 3/23/99 9:28:42 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

When was the last radio range switched off? Also, do you
know if there are any airway beacons still in operation?

I am not sure of either.

The last time I shot a low frequency range approach was at Gore Bay,
Ontario in 1965 and I was flying a Beech straight 35, serial number D-273,
N2868V. The weather was right at minima and it worked just as well as it
had years before.
VOR was better and GPS is better yet!
I believe the last LF ranges were in Canada and Alaska and may have been
around as recently as the late eighties, though I can’t say for sure.
I believe the last actual airway beacon course was the one maintained by
the state of West Virginia westbound from DCA toward Pittsburgh. I think
that was shut down some ten years ago. Hopefully some of our members
will have better information.
Many of the original beacons are still operating at various airports around
the country.
When the enroute structure was dismantled by the government, the beacons
were offered to local authorities and if there were no takers among that
group, they were given to any airport, private or whatever, who wanted to
use them as airport beacons.
I occasionally note them in my travels, though they are getting expensive
to maintain and are being replaced with more modern lights at many fields.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990323 104823 msg03191.tex]

988
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Losing a Blade
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:47:10

In a message dated 1/30/01 12:16:10 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Have any of you heard of anything like that happening? Is it

at all likely that the situation would be at all salvageable and
survivable?

Good Afternoon Eric,

It has happened fairly often. That’s why you want to take good care of
your prop!
Bobby Younkin’s air show Twin Beech lost a blade a couple of years ago
when it was being flown by a ferry pilot back to Arkansas.
On a twin engined airplane there is some possibility of it making it safely
to the ground. We checked the accident record of the Twin Beech at that
time. While I don’t have the exact numbers handy, I believe the records
show around eleven airplanes had lost a blade section which was big enough
to rip the engine from it’s attachment points on the airframe. On some,
the engine fell completely away from the airframe and on others it was just
left dangling. I believe there were four airplanes that made it to a safe
forced landing and the rest were lost with all occupants. My recollection
was that the ones where the engine fell away completely did slightly better
than the ones that had the engine dangling.
In the case of Bobby’s airplane, the pilot had it under control with the
engine dangling, though with a high rate of descent. Unfortunately, he hit
some trees while trying to get it on the ground and was killed. There aren’t
a lot of good places to land such a rig in Arkansas.
On a single engine airplane, control is not likely to be available due to
center of gravity problems if the engine falls away. If it stays with the
airframe, survival is possible, but not easy.
It was widely reported in the press just before W.W.II that a prop blade
had been lost on a J-3 which resulted in the engine being ripped from the
airplane, but most of the engine mount remained. The flight instructor
climbed out of the front seat and hung onto the engine mount while the
student flew it down to a safe landing.
Truly the days of Iron Men.
The event was later chronicled as an event in the comic strip ”Smilin’ Jack”
Happy Skies,

989
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010130 144710 msg02229.tex]

990
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Meyers 200
Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:27:22

In a message dated 2/14/00 6:20:30 PM Central Standard Time, new-

[email protected] writes:

Do any of you have experience with the Meyers 200? The

designer was Al Meyers, Meyers Aircraft, Tecumseh, MI.. The
airplane was produced in from 1959 to 1967. Only about 133
were built.

Good Evening Bob,

You know I just have to add my two bit’s on this one!
I had the pleasure of meeting Al and touring the factory about the time
the 200 was first introduced. We went to dinner with he and his wife. They
were a delightful couple and very pleasant company.
He later sold the design to Aero Commander and the last ones were built
as Commander 200s.
Al didn’t actually design the airplane, he was just the boss and guided the
program along. It was actually a spin off from the Meyers 145 and that
started out as a homebuilt one of a kind which he and some of the others
at the factory were going to build for Al’s wife who was also a pilot. Al
was primarily a pilot and flight instructor fixed base kind of guy. When
the war started, he saw the need for a good trainer for the CPT and WTS
programs and he got together a design team and came up with the Meyers
OTW (Out To Win). 103 of those were built. I believe they all went to
the CPT program.
There was one Meyers 200 built for Peter Glukman as a long range world
traveler. It had special wings that were about four feet longer span and were
completely full of fuel. There were the same number of ribs, just spaced
further apart! That airplane was later returned to a standard configuration
and the wings were stored in the loft of Als hangar in Tecumseh at the time
of the sale to Commander. I wonder what happened to them?
Aero Commander sold the design to a fellow out west who’s name escapes
me just now. He put a 675 (or so) horsepower Garret turboprop in the
nose and derated it to 400 HP. I don’t think he ever got it approved, but it
did tour the country on a promotional tour. I had the opportunity to fly it
from Chicago to Lafayette Indiana and back. What a blast! As you say, the
controls are a little stiff and the airplane is small, but what a performer.
The only other one I flew was one built by Commander and had the IO520.
It was substantially faster than the V35A that I had at the time.

991
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

A little off topic I guess, but fun to reminisce about.

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000215 012722 msg02987.tex]

992
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Meyers 200
Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:36:11

In a message dated 2/15/00 1:05:29 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Say, did I get the part about the tooling in the rafters right?
I hear this stuff second and third hand.
Cheers!
Bill

Good Morning Bill,

I don’t remember that specifically, but it could well have been true.
There was a shop area at the rear, west end, of a large, but not overly large,
hangar. A lot of small component jigs and fixtures were in that area with
small pieces in various stages of construction. There was a large loft on
the southeast corner. Various large components were on the eastern, open
section, of the loft while the area west of that position had an enclosed
storage area for smaller stuff.
At least, that is the way I remember it!
I was never there when an airframe was being constructed and I wouldn’t
be at all surprised if there was stuff stored in the rafters as well as the loft
areas.
Using the space in the rafters was a common thing to do in the thirties and
forties. It seemed that most radio shops of the day were so located. Hot
as Hades in the summer and generally cold in the winter as most of the
hangars were unheated. Insulation was poor and space heaters not very
efficient. Fires were not unusual.
Yup, those were sure the ”Good Old Days”!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000215 103611 msg03003.tex]

993
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Model 17
Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:11:13

In a message dated 1/11/01 11:53:45 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Any comments about a bo driver buying one who does not

now have taildragger time (obviously I would go get time in
a piper cruiser or the like before flying the 17)?

Good Afternoon Steve,

As I think you are already aware, the Model 17 Beechcraft is my all time
favorite airplane.
In the late fifties I owned both a C17R Beechcraft and a straight 35 Bo-
nanza.
The 17 was by far the most fun to fly and the best performer of the two.
It could land shorter, get out faster, climb higher and cruise faster.
But the Bonanza was the more practical and far easier to fly.
It is not that the Model 17 is difficult to fly, it definitely is not, but it does
take technique that is not commonly taught to today’s aviators.
Should you decide to take the plunge, I sincerely hope that you will join
the Staggerwing Museum Foundation. We have available many back issues
of our newsletter. There are articles in there about how best to handle the
Beechcraft Model 17.
Some months ago, I posted an article on this forum which was a rewrite of
one that I had originally written for the Staggerwing/Twin Beech group.
The technique described therein works in all aileron equipped aircraft, but
it is especially beneficial when applied to the early Beechcrafts.
Should you like an extra copy, let me know and I will E-mail one directly
to you.
If you want to get some tail wheel experience that will aid in the transition,
I would suggest that you find a Luscombe to fly. All of the Pipers are so
easy to fly that lousy technique can be used and they will still not bite!
The Luscombes are not hard to fly, but they are more demanding and you
are more likely to develop proper handling technique than you are with a
baby carriage like a Cub or a Cruiser.
I do hope you find the Staggerwing of your dreams. They are a fabulous
piece of equipment and the great granddaddies (or maybe, grandmothers?)
of our beloved Bonanzas.

994
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010111 141113 msg00747.tex]

995
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Model 36
Sun, 1 Oct 2000 00:17:10

In a message dated 9/30/00 10:44:32 PM Central Daylight Time, Ernie [email protected]

writes:

So you don’t like my Model 36??? The only one still in pro-
duction

I didn’t say I don’t like them, I just wish the Beech marketing people could
have come up with a name worthy of the aircraft instead of lamely adapting
one that was already in use.
I have owned a couple over the years and if I needed an airplane that had
the characteristics of the 36, I would buy one again.
They are an excellent piece of equipment.
They just aren’t Bonanzas.
It all depends!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001001 001710 msg14279.tex]

996
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Model 36 Name
Wed, 14 Feb 2001 20:08:47

In a message dated 2/14/01 6:09:17 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Excuse me Ol’ Bob but my 1984 B36TC is definitely a Bo-

nanza and does not have cowl flaps.
Allen

Good Evening Allen,

Just because the Beechcraft Public Relations and Advertising folks couldn’t
think of new name for that very fine and excellent stretch Debbie, doesn’t
make it a Bonanza. That is not meant to take anything away from what a
fine and useful aircraft it is.
It just Ain’t No Bonanza!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010214 200847 msg03863.tex]

997
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Mooney Mite and Crosley Engine

Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:58:23

In a message dated 7/17/00 4:30:11 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Were not the original M-19 Mooney Mites powered by the

Crosley four cylinder engine?

Hi Carter,
Yes, but it was an entirely different 4 cylinder engine!
The one used in the Mite was made of stamped steel parts that were placed
in an oven stacked together with a brazing strip between.
The whole thing was heated up and the steel plates ended up brazed to-
gether. It was called the COBRA engine for COpper BRAzed.
Didn’t work worth a darn and the Crosley automobile went to a Cast Iron
conventional style engine. That was called the CIBA engine and was quite
successful. Since the little light weight engine was not available, Mooney
went to the Lycoming and later the Continental 65s.
Another good idea that was never developed!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000717 175823 msg11060.tex]

998
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Squawk 1400 Above 10,000 feet?

Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:04:43

Hi Tom,
In a message dated 98-08-11 13:50:16 EDT, you write:

Any verifications from an ”ancient aviator”?

I really don’t remember when the requirement for 1400 above 10T was
dropped but I do remember squawking 1400 in the early jets when we can-
celed on the way down and I used it a lot in my Bonanzas in the seventies.
I think Dwaines estimate of around twenty or twentfive years ago is pretty
close.
Ancient Bob
[ARTICLES/19980811 160443 msg04217.tex]

999
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Staggerwing Museum
Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:10:02

Good Morning Dwaine,

You asked;

Like the song a couple years ago about the old folks. ”Where
you been?”

These old folks were at the Midwest Bonanza Society fall get together at
Deerfield resort after which we DROVE around the Great Smoky Moun-
tains and then over to the combined Beechcraft Staggerwing and Twin
Beechcraft annual convention at Tullahoma, Tennessee.
If you or any of the rest of our Bonanza lovers are ever in the vicinity
of Tullahoma, try to stop and visit the museum. It is the only place in
the world where Beechcraft history is retained. Raytheon certainly has no
interest in the origination of Beech Aircraft Corporation.
The Staggerwing Museum has serial number one Model 17 along with sev-
eral newer examples including one of the last G17s built. There are artifacts
from the early Travel Air days as well as displays of engines and uncovered
components of model 17s.
The Twin Beech hangar has three examples of the type starting with serial
number 11, the second oldest 18 in existence.
There is a small fee for nonmembers and it is best to call and find out when
it will be open. There are no full time employees. Everything is done by
volunteers. (Makes sense since Tennessee is the Volunteer State!)
Normal times are 1 to 4 PM Saturday and Sunday, March through Novem-
ber. It is worth a call to see if anyone might be there at other times. For
a good size group, special arrangements can be made.
Phone: 615 455-1974
Thanks for asking!
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19981020 091002 msg06129.tex]

1000
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Twin Beech
Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:43:42

In a message dated 2/28/01 2:46:57 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

But . . . I don’t have that many friends. It did, however, give

me a chance to once again consider the ”benefits” of a twin.
As I wing my way from Louisiana to Las Vegas this Saturday
in the Bonanza, I’ll consider that topic, I’m sure.

Good Afternoon Tom,

They are a wonderful airplane.
Our youngest son has an early E18S. He bought it a few years ago to haul
his family around in. He remembered how much he had enjoyed playing in
the back with all his toy cars and such when he was four or five years old
so when his kids came along, he just had to have a Twin Beech.
Most of the time he is all by himself and it doesn’t have an autopilot.
Keeps him pretty busy, but he flies it all over the country for business and
pleasure. When his wife is on board, he burns about forty-two gallons per
hour. She wants to go fast. When he is alone, he usually burns about
thirty-six GPH. He enjoys the flying and doesn’t mind building the time!
Try to get up to the Beech Party at Tullahoma this fall.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010228 174342 msg04869.tex]

1001
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Twin Bonanza
Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:34:51

In a message dated 2/7/01 12:42:21 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

The Twin Bonanza uses the Beech 18 landing gear??? Doesn’t

look like it to me. As far as I can tell the T-bone wing is a
Queen Air wing, including the gear. In addition, those are all
Lycoming engines, some of which were supercharged and not
turbocharged.
–Pete

Good Morning Pete,

All of what you say is true, but wouldn’t be reasonable to put it the other
way?
The Queen Air was a development of the Twin Bonanza which was a de-
velopment of the single engine Bonanza. The King Air was a development
of the Turbine powered Queen Air that they built for the military.
The last two were being developed at the same time and I am not sure
which actually went into service first, but that was the way the engineering
development proceeded.
The wings on all are built on jigs that were originally designed and built
for the Bonanza wings. If you really want to, you could unbolt the wing
on any Twin Bonanza and bolt a wing from any Bonanza onto the center
section.
Kinda like the DC-3 which could use a DC-2 wing!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010207 083451 msg03036.tex]

1002
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Twin Bonanza Stairs

Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:09:35

In a message dated 2/7/01 9:39:48 AM Central Standard Time, sder-

[email protected] writes:

I think that’s the kind of stairs the Twin Bonanza had I saw
at grants!
It was a short 3 or 4 step affair that led you to the wing, then
you got in like a normal Bonanza.
It drops out of the belly and then slides out to position itself
behind the wing.
Scott

Yep, that’s it!!

If the one you saw was operative, you had a rare sighting.
Most of them have been long retired. It is a maintenance nightmare.
Only a purist Twin Bonanza lover would bother to keep it serviceable.
The Mamie step came about due to a fall that Mamie Eisenhower took
while trying to board the T-Bone that had been assigned to take Ike up to
Camp David.
It had the original T-Bone boarding step which consisted of three small
pads on a steel tube which extended with the landing gear.
Ike owned and flew a straight 35 during the time that he was president of
Columbia University.
When he went to tour Korea, after he won the election and before he was
inaugurated, the army assigned a T-Bone and a pilot to get him around
the country.
Well, being an avid private pilot and a retired general, he flew it from the
left seat and had a ball.
He asked for one to be assigned to him in DCA.
After Mamie slipped on the access steps and skinned her shin badly, she
used uncharacteristic language to advise any and all that she would never
get near one of those things again.
That was when the Aero Commander folks got the order which saved the
company from failure.

1003
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

The Army bought a couple to use for transportation in lieu of the T-Bone.
It was easy for Mamie to get in and out of and we all know how important
it is to keep the boss happy.
Beech quickly designed the new monstrous kitchen stair mechanism, but
it was too late. They lost the best booster they had ever had and Aero
Commander reaped the benefits.
The translating stair was always referred to at the factory as the Mamie
Eisenhower stair.
And so is history made!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010207 110935 msg03057.tex]

1004
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Twin Engine Beechcraft

Sat, 30 Sep 2000 18:58:25

In a message dated 9/30/00 4:03:15 PM Central Daylight Time, john-

[email protected] writes:

There was a Twin Bonanza (V-tail) parked next to me in OSH

two years ago. It was owned by a fellow that flies for one of
the overnight delivery services. Seems like he was from Ohio
or Michigan.
Cheers, Ralph

Good Evening All,

The proper name for the Bonanza with two engines on it is the Super V.
Beech had already built the Twin Bonanza model 50, which, as we all know,
is a much larger airplane and does not have a V tail.
It is rather like the situation with the Twin Beech.
Beech Aircraft Corporation has built many different twin engine airplanes,
but only one series is properly entitled to be called a Twin Beech.
That is the model 18.
Twin Beech is what Beech called it and Twin Bonanza was the name they
gave to the model 50. (I still have never forgiven them for trying to use
the Bonanza name on the stretch Debbies)
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000930 185825 msg14272.tex]

1005
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Two Man Crew

Thu, 24 Aug 2000 18:00:52

In a message dated 8/24/00 3:36:39 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:
Sorry to open a can of worms, but hey, that’s how we learn!
tt

Good Afternoon Again Tom,

One more possibility exists. There was a date in 1958, I believe it was in the fall, when
the FAA issued the two pilot rule for jets. The Moraine Saulnier (sp?) 760 Paris Jet
was certificated before that time and does not require a two man crew or a type rating.
There was conjecture that a Sud Est 210 Caravelle could be flown single pilot under the
same ”prior approval” status but I doubt if anyone ever did it!
I would imagine the FAA has added some rules somewhere to tighten up some of the
neat things that have been done in years past, but there was a story going around the
industry that the Dodgers had a pilot flying their B-720 who had only a private pilots
license with an instrument ticket and a type rating in the airplane. It seems he was the
son of one of the owners and flew the airplane only incidental to his other duties with
the team!
Who knows for sure?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000824 180052 msg12526.tex]

1006
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Two Man Crew - DC-3

Thu, 24 Aug 2000 23:51:22

In a message dated 8/24/00 10:24:15 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I am trying to visualize how the single pilot would adjust the cowl flaps on
the DC-3

It depends on where the valves were located and how long ones arms are.
While most were located behind and to the right of the copilot seat, many others were
just forward of the copilots side window, below the windshield, and a few were to the
right of center aft of the instrument panel and below the windshield.
I could reach the ones behind the copilot seat and I have short arms, but not all folks
could.
I have seen a couple of airplanes where the valves had been relocated to a position just to
the left of the copilots seat and slightly toward the forward side of the hydraulic panel.
They were a little in the way of getting into the cockpit, but most of us were younger
and more agile in those days anyway!
They were very rarely adjusted to any position other than open, close or trail anyway.
No one that I ever flew with attempted to adjust them with the fine tuning that we used
on the six and seven.
I always thought the toughest thing for single pilot operations was raising the gear. I
had to lean over far enough when unlatching the spring latch such that I couldn’t see
over the glare shield. My procedure was to establish a pitch attitude which I would be
happy with in case of an engine failure, then concentrate on holding that attitude on the
artificial horizon during the one or two seconds my gaze was below the glareshield. Some
guys with longer arms than mine could reach the latch and still see over the glareshield.
There were a very few folks who would place the uplock latch in the spring lock position
before starting the takeoff roll. United Air Lines did not approve of that procedure, but
I have been told it was common on some carriers. It did allow the gear to be unlatched
and retracted faster than the way we did it. The fellows that used that procedure would
make a final check of ”tail wheel locked, spring lock and trail, ” just as they took the
runway for takeoff.
It all brings back fond memories! Thanks for asking.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000824 235122 msg12543.tex]

1007
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Two Man Crew - DC-3

Thu, 31 Aug 2000 11:09:13

In a message dated 8/31/00 8:49:37 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob,
In reference to your ”The DC-3 is an easy one man machine, but in both it
and the Twin Beech, visibility in a right turn is a problem.” Wouldn’t you
want to solo a DC-3 from the right seat? Access to the landing gear down
latch would be simpler as it’s located under the Captains seat, as I’m sure
that you know. Also, the cow flaps were on the far right side, kind of hard
to reach from the left seat.
Love this memory lane stuffg.
Cheers, Ralph

Good Morning Ralph,

My airline DC-3 experience was all as a copilot except during my initial ATP training
and Captain checkout. When we bought our own DC-3, I was the designated check pilot
and instructor so I flew the airplane quite bit from both seats.
As I mentioned before, I have seen a fairly large number of DC-3s where the cowl flap
valves were located below the right windshield and a few where they were located closer
to the center, beneath the right windshield and just aft of the instrument panel. I even
saw a couple where they had been relocated to a position just ahead of the hydraulic
panel and to the left of the copilots seat. They made access to the cockpit more difficult
and I am sure that cowl flap position was one that was done by one individual operator
to accommodate the single pilot operation. The positions on the right side forward of
the copilot had the look of a long time and fairly permanent installation, so I don’t know
if they were factory installations or not. I saw enough of them to make me think they
might have been.
In any case, all of the Mainliners (passenger airplanes) which we had at UAL had the
original cowl flap position far to the right and aft of the copilots side window. I think
some of our Cargoliners had them just forward of the copilots side window, but those
were all military C-47s, not DC-3s.
I have relatively short arms, but a long trunk. I did not find it difficult to operate the
cowl flaps located behind the copilots window, provided there was no one sitting in the
copilots seat. If I had a passenger there, I would brief them on the operation of the cowl
flaps.
To my best recollection, the spring latch for the landing gear is located just ahead and
slightly to the right of the pilots seat right front seat attachment point. I have operated
it from both seats and I recall it being a slightly longer stretch for me if I was in the

1008
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

copilots seat. In both cases, my head would go below the glare shield when I reached
for it. I knew some long armed folks who could still look outside while unlatching the
lock, but I couldn’t.
On the UAL airplanes, we had a flight instrument grouping only on the captains side
and, as copilots, we flew by looking across the cockpit at his instruments. We became
very good at handling parallax!
There were additional flight instruments added around the panel to meet FAA redun-
dancy requirements, but they were not grouped together to provide any sort of an
alternate instrument panel capability.
Due to insurance requirements, I never actually flew our part 91 DC-3 single pilot.
However, the insurance only required that we have another commercial rated pilot on
board. He/she did not have to be instrument rated or have any training in the aircraft.
I found it relatively easy to find someone who would be willing to get a ride in the DC-3
any time I needed to fly it for a maintenance or repositioning flight.
Since, as you know, the landing gear can get really screwed up if the levers are not
sequenced properly, I never briefed a warm body copilot or a new transition student to
handle the gear on the first takeoff.
If it was to be just a single flight, I flew the airplane one hundred per cent single pilot
style with the exception of having the right seater handle the cowl flaps. If the person
was to be trained in the airplane, I would brief landing gear operation before the flight,
but would make the first retraction myself and also flew the airplane. Once we were
in flight and stabilized at an appropriate altitude, I would do the landing gear training
and allow the student to cycle the gear a few times until they were comfortable in the
operation.
I never even considered flying the thing solo from the right seat, but I guess it would
have worked all right. That is basically what I did anytime I was checking a new student
out in the left seat who had never flown a DC-3 before. I always did my single pilot
thing for the first takeoff and initiated the training after we were airborne.
I was a fun time!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000831 110913 msg12875.tex]

1009
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

WWII pilot’s Total Time

Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:28:06

In a message dated 1/22/99 3:46:30 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Has anybody noticed that practically all the ex military fields had crosswind
runways? Cheers Carmine Pecoraro —–Original Message—–

Yes, and on top of that, most of the Navy primary fields of WW II had a double fan
layout that allowed landings and takeoff to be performed dead into the wind the vast
majority of the time. The last time I flew over Glenview Naval Air Station (Now closed
completely) the layout of those double fans was still visible.
Remember also, that it was not unusual for those young men to be ”shooting at and
being shot at” to protect the rest of us with a little over two hundred hours of total flying
time, sometimes even less. One of my instructors when I was working on my private
ticket was a young man named F. A. Jones. He had never flown before he went into
flight training. He was trained to be a P51 pilot, went to the South Pacific, took special
training which allowed his P51 to be launched from a carrier for invasion purposes,
supported the ground troops as they took a beach head and had no place to land if the
Seabees didn’t get a metal landing strip down on the beach for them before they ran
out of fuel. After all of that he came home, went to a local flight school, obtained a
civilian commercial and flight instructor rating and proceeded to teach we dummies as
much as possible. He had been working at the place where I was flying at the time for
several months when he rode with me for the purposes of a recommendation ride for my
private pilots certificate.
As we were both filling out our logbooks after the flight, he commented that the flight
had taken him over the three hundred and fifty hour mark!
Those gentlemen did a fantastic job of making the world a safer place for all of us, but
they did it with very little training and experience. Every little help that could be given
was appreciated by all.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19990122 172806 msg01009.tex]

1010
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Walking on Water
Sat, 5 Sep 1998 14:24:16

In a message dated 9/5/98 9:04:54 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

I just ran across an extremely thought provoking article. I am referring to

the October ’98 issue of Mountain Pilot magazine. There is an article in
there about a bush pilot in Alaska that uses tire hydroplaning as a method
to land, taxi and takeoff his wheel equipped airplane on water, such as a
river.

Hi All,
This is one of those things that keeps being reinvented over the years. I remember
reading about it in Popular Aviation in the early forties and then an iteration appeared
in the fifties when some tests were done with Federal wheel/ski combinations. As I
recall, they were able to get by using an early small engined Super Cub with about
twenty-five or thirty feet of run on a beach. After they hit the water, the wheels were
retracted and maneuvering on the water was a snap.
As I recall, the outfit that was doing it was All American Airways which was the prede-
cessor of Alleghany which, of course, turned into USAir. There were some problems with
water getting into the engine combustion air intake and it was relocated to a position
above the engine cowl.
I do remember some of my friends who had instructed in the military making the state-
ment that they used to take Stearmans down on various lakes and make touchdowns
after which they would roar around the lake setting up a beautiful rooster tail and im-
pressing all of the ladies about. The claim was that after touch down at around fifty or
sixty mph, they would add full throttle and could then shove the stick forward as hard
as they wanted and the wheels would go no deeper.
Sounds like fun but I never had the guts to try it!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980905 142416 msg05270.tex]

1011
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Water Injection
Wed, 2 May 2001 09:18:04

In a message dated 5/2/01 12:20:01 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob, when I was a kid I worked summers loading crop dust in Stearmans
with 450hp engines. Maybe this is what the guy was using. Do you suppose
it was injected into the intake manifold, similar to our fuel injection? With
water weighing 8.3#/g, and alcohol 6.9#/g(sp=0.83); it must have been
about a 50-50 mixture, to end up weighing 7.5#/g. Jerry Osborne, PRC,
Az, J35, N8323D, IO-470-C.

Good Morning Jerry,

I probably didn’t question the subject as deeply back in 1951 as I would today, or, if I
did, senility has driven the knowledge from my mind. We were told that the reason for
the alcohol was to avoid freezing. Supposedly, plain water would have done the job as
far as preventing detonation. The question always came up during ground school, since
there were always a few car folks in the group that had some experience using alcohol
in their cars. I was, and still am, just a listener.
A lot of hot rodders liked to run straight alky, but that was used as the primary fuel. It
took an awful lot of gallons to get the power. I guess the reduced potential for detonation
allowed them to use higher compression ratios and the high fuel burn wasn’t a problem!
On the version of the P&W R2800 we had on the DC-6, first the CA-15 and later,
the CB-16, the fuel was injected into the blower section of the engine. One thing I
do remember was that the setup was very similar to that used in the PS5C injection
carburetor used on the Bonanza at the time. I have no memory of where the water
was injected, but suppose it was in the blower section as well. John Deakin is currently
operating some of these engines. Maybe he will let us all know!
On the version of the Turbo Compound Wright R3350 we had on the DC-7s, direct
cylinder fuel injection was used and UAL never had any of the ones which used ADI.
My wild guess would be that the water was injected into the blower section. I believe
Jim Northcutt and/or Ralph Requa may have more current experience than do I with
those engines.
I do have recent experience with the P&W R985 and have never heard of any water
injection being used there, but who knows??
That’s about all that I have from my ancient memories and I don’t have any documen-
tation from those days to check for accuracy.
Thanks for asking and jogging my memories.
Happy Skies,

1012
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010502 091804 msg08706.tex]

1013
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Meyers 200
Sun, 29 Oct 2000 15:31:44

Paul McCracken wrote:

We actually are a Meyers ”specialty” shop in light of the fact that our
boss/owner is a Meyers 200D owner and works on 3 different other Meyers
aircraft from the A model to a D. I can tell you, they are an impressive
machine built very Beech-like with a comfy, spacious cabin very UNLIKE
a Mooney and more like a Bo. The visibility is awesome, too, with all that
glass surrounding you. I’d LOVE to have one in addition to my C35, after
working on ’em and flying them (once). Stable and truck-like, so it doesn’t
handle like a Bo, but handles very pleasantly nevertheless. Very fast, too,
with the IO-520 in the D model. IO-470 and the 0-470 in the older ones, I
think.
PMC N76BB
Good Afternoon Paul,
I was planning on staying out of this conversation.
The Rangemaster, Meyers and the stretch Debbies are all fine airplanes with pluses and
minuses like everything else. It all Depends.
But, I can’t help mentioning that I did have an opportunity to fly the Meyers Interceptor
in the days of yore.
I flew it from Chicago’s Midway Airport to Lafayette, Indiana and back. The airplane
was being taken there for a demo and I was allowed left seat for the legs down and back.
As I recall, the engine was rated at something around 775 shaft horsepower but was
derated for use in the Meyers. The derate was done by watching the torquemeter and
not exceeding the allowed torque. I was told by the demo pilot that the only problem
with using the higher horsepower was one of being able to control the torque with the
rudder. He said that as soon as we were above one hundred miles per hour indicated,
we could go to full power as long as we observed the Tail Pipe Temperature and did not
exceed the basic engine limitations. Needless to say, we gave it a shot!
We departed MDW with full tanks and three of us on board. The rate of climb using
four hundred horsepower was around fifteen hundred feet per minute. About the time
we went through five thousand, he suggested that we go to full power and the rate of
climb went up to over 3500 feet per minute. The fuel flow went out of sight!
My recollection was that the airplane was comfortable enough for four, but that there
wasn’t much space for baggage. I also have some memory that we were rather short on
fuel. He fueled it at LAF before the demo and again before we came back to MDW.

1014
CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

I also think that we were at, or a little over, gross for both takeoffs with three guys
around 180 on board.
The airplane was equipped with a blow down turbine air-conditioning and bleed air
pressurization unit, but neither was working at the time. I imagine that added quite a
bit of dead weight.
It was an experience!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001029 153144 msg15449.tex]

1015
 CHAPTER 6. HISTORY

Wartime Training and Lindbergh

Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:09:45

In a message dated 2/9/01 1:41:24 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I think it was Lindbergh that used the low RPM technique to get extra
range out of P-38s in the Pacific and that ”wartime expediency” gained the
range necessary to take the war to the Japanese.

Good Afternoon Hal,

Col. Lindbergh was one of the few who was around who knew how to operate an engine
and he did what he could to teach the aviators with whom he had contact that there
was more to operating an engine than what they had learned in their wartime expedited
training program.
His actions and the necessity of such training as he provided are evidence of how great
was the problem.
Unfortunately, Roosevelt had so poisoned the minds of the American public concerning
Lindbergh’s activities prior to the war, that his only method of helping his country was
to gain assignment as a civilian pilot assigned to military units. He managed to provide
a very important service to his country in spite of the difficulties FDR heaped upon him.
It’s too bad that he wasn’t allowed to teach that which he knew via the official training
command.
Happy Skies
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010209 150945 msg03273.tex]

1016
Chapter 7

MAINT

7.1 MAINT-ELECTRICAL

1017
7.1. MAINT-ELECTRICAL CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Alternator Discharge
Sat, 27 May 2000 19:42:58

In a message dated 5/27/00 5:19:04 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

With a full load, the [50 amp] alternator goes into the discharge mode. He
is looking for a 70 amp or even a 60 amp alternator 12 volt to put with the
IO 470 N to ease the electrical situation.

Good Evening Alan,

Just had another thought, if your friend is actually getting the full fifty amps and still
feels he needs a little more, he might consider adding the B&C standby alternator. That
is supposed to pick up the load anytime the primary alternator can’t deliver enough poop!
I don’t think I would want to rely on that for normal operation, but for an occasional
heavy load, it should work OK. If he is interested, he should check with Bill Bainbridge
at B&C.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000527 194258 msg08807.tex]

1018
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.1. MAINT-ELECTRICAL

Alternator Discharging
Sat, 27 May 2000 18:31:09

In a message dated 5/27/00 5:19:04 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

With a full load, the [50 amp] alternator goes into the discharge mode.

Good Evening Alan,

Any idea what he is calling a full load? Fifty amps should handle all continuous loads
unless he has some awfully high draw equipment on board. Has he checked to see that
it is putting out the full fifty amps? If there is a diode out, the amperage capacity will
be down, but the unit will still put out normal voltage.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000527 183109 msg08799.tex]

1019
7.1. MAINT-ELECTRICAL CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Battery Box Removal

Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:42:53

In a message dated 1/4/00 8:34:41 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Old Bob, on a related subject, what is the trick to removing the battery
box, for really good access?

Good Morning Jerry,

Do you mean to remove it and replace it with one mounted forward of the firewall or
just to remove it for routine maintenance?
I rather like the factory installation if you don’t need the space between the panel and
the firewall for something else. It opens up the engine compartment and allows easier
access to the cowl flap mechanism and such. I also like having the battery box being
removable with just a few screws for easier access behind the instrument panel from the
engine compartment.
Speaking of access to the front end, I always considered the addition of the kidney panel
to be one of the biggest improvements on the A35 over the straight 35. Unfortunately, so
many mechanics have considered it to be the easy place to hang additional equipment
that many kidney panels are quite difficult to remove. What that means is that the
area is not well inspected and the control mechanism is not properly lubricated. I wish
that the modifiers would be a little more cognizant of the requirements of continued
maintenance.
I try to remove the kidney panel and the ”buried” battery box for every annual on
airplanes so equipped. They are then the easiest ones to inspect adequately! We find
many pieces of additional equipment hung on the battery box which discourages one
from fremoving it at annual time. Pity!
Happy Skies,
Old Coot Bob
[ARTICLES/20000104 104253 msg00162.tex]

1020
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.1. MAINT-ELECTRICAL

Battery Charging
Fri, 26 Jan 2001 23:07:50

In a message dated 1/26/01 9:46:20 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I think 13.8 to 14.2 is the norm for 12 volt systems using alternators. At
least in automotive applications it is. 13.6 might cause a slightly shorter
battery life due to increased sulfation in a normal lead-acid battery.
I think gel batteries might like a different charging voltage.
Carter DuBois

Good Evening Carter,

Seems to me I remember reading that a fully charged lead acid cell using a 1.285 acid
mix would have a potential of 2.1 volts. 6 cells should be 12.6 volts and 12 cells should
be 25.2 if the preceding is true.
I would imagine that any charge well above that amount would tend to push out the
water a little faster than would a charge just a little above that amount. I know that
the cell can hold a potential above that amount for a few hours after a higher voltage
charge, but won’t it settle down to the theoretical voltage after a day or so?
I’ve always figured Beech recommends a charging voltage of 14 plus for the 12 volt
system and 28 volts plus for the 24 due to losses in the wiring, etc., so as to assure that
the potential will be at the max. The extra voltage probably does shove some extra
water out and that is why they ask that we check the water level as often as they do.
Maybe the Zeftronics folks figure the modern systems have less loss and a more stable
output that allows a lower voltage, thus reducing the need to add water and yet still
maintain the maximum potential output of the battery.
Any of your electrical gurus care to comment?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010126 230750 msg01928.tex]

1021
7.1. MAINT-ELECTRICAL CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Battery Master - Old Style

Sun, 16 Apr 2000 17:15:01

In a message dated 4/16/00 7:44:01 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Seems like I remember that the battery master circuit runs through the
mag switch on some of the earlier birds.
Curious if so, Joe. Haven’t come across that. Let us know what you find.
If so, I don’t know about it causing a ”spike,” but it could turn off all
electrics.

Good Afternoon Ron and Joe,

I believe that style switch was used up through the P model, maybe even later. The
switch has a battery position and if the airplane is still wired as it came from the factory,
anytime you move the ignition switch, the battery wafer switch will break then make
again. That will cause modern electronics to drop off the line and really screw things
up. Most decent electronic shops have made an alteration that eliminates the battery
function from the keyed switch. It is easy to do. I have written copiously about this in
the past so I won’t bore the folks by repeating the data, but I would make the alteration
on any aircraft so equipped.
That is likely to be the problem that dropped Joe’s autopilot off the line.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000416 171501 msg06448.tex]

1022
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.1. MAINT-ELECTRICAL

Battery Master - Old Style

Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:44:58

In a message dated 4/16/00 5:55:17 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Thanks, Old Bob - and welcome back - imagine you were away vacationing
in the warmth somewhere!
As mentioned to Joe, I’ve never seen this before - and curiously don’t
remember reading about it here either - a senior moment at my age is a bit
of a worry (to me). g
Cheers - Ron

Good Evening Ron,

Since I am now unemployed, I no longer have days off or vacations. I find it much more
difficult to get anything done than when I was gainfully employed!
I did manage to circle high over Bill McCune’s house up in the hills near Tehachapi, but
since the winds were up near 50 knots from the east, I didn’t get very low! After that
we were down at Lakeland doing the Sun n’ Fun thing. Tough life!
The ground wire actuates the battery solenoid and that wire runs from the solenoid
to the master switch to the wafer on the keyed switch and then to ground. It is duck
soup to just remove the wire that goes from the master switch to the wafer switch and
run it directly to ground. That solves the intermittent power problem. The question is
whether it is a minor or a major alteration and whether it requires a 337 or just a log
book entry.
In any case, it is widely done and probably not always documented!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000416 194458 msg06458.tex]

1023
7.1. MAINT-ELECTRICAL CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Battery Master - Old Style

Sat, 5 Aug 2000 09:42:15

In a message dated 8/5/00 8:04:08 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Thing is, I would like to change the ignition switch to be OFF-L-R-BOTH,

and also alleviate the problem where my electrical power cuts out to the
radios when switching between mags. This is a major headache I’d like to
get rid of.

Good Morning Matt,

Regardless of what you decide to do about the ignition switch, I would definitely run the
wire from the ”master” switch directly to ground and not through the ”ignition” switch
as it was originally wired. It is a very simple job. All that needs to be done is to look at
the master switch and see which wire runs to the ignition switch. Take that one off and
deactivate it suitably. Run a new wire of the same size to ground. That will eliminate
all of the chatter of the electronic stuff when your mags are checked. I consider that
to be a minor alteration which only requires a log book entry by a licensed mechanic
or repair station. Many of my IA and FAA friends consider it to be a major alteration
which requires the submission of a 337. In any case, I have never found anyone who
does not consider the change to be a worthwhile improvement to the aircraft and it is
nice to have a 337 on file that shows the change.
As to eliminating the rest of the garbage that Beech had on the monstrous wafer switch
unit, that is somewhat dependent on the starter that is installed on your airplane.
Some used a latching relay to avoid accidental rapid reengagement of the starter if your
finger slipped off the starter button. You will have to research exactly what is currently
installed on your airplane and many changes are likely to have been made that were not
listed in the ships paperwork.
I would suggest you make contact with a good electrician and figure out what is required
on your airplane.
There should be no problem with the FAA if you decide to install a more modern stan-
dalone ignition switch provided you document the manner in which you have eliminated
all of the superfluous wafers.
It has been done many times with no paperwork being submitted!
I would suggest, however, that you just file a 337 and note that you are bringing the
aircraft wiring up to the specifications of the newer aircraft built by Beech/Raytheon.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000805 094215 msg11768.tex]

1024
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.1. MAINT-ELECTRICAL

Battery Selection
Mon, 30 Jun 1997 19:30:47

Hi Dave,
The concord battery to which you are refering is a recombinant battery. It is NOT a
gel cell but it is a ”no service” battery.
It sounds real interesting.
I have not used one personally but it was brought up for discussion at the January
meeting of the World Beechcraft Society in Tucson.
There were a couple of people who hated them and several who had them that were
very happy. My limited research tells me that they are in need of very careful charging
and maintenance but if that is given, they have long life and good service.
Most of us don’t take care of the batteries we have properly anyway so proper care of
any battery would probably lengthen it’s life considerably.
I am planning on trying one the next time I need a battery for my own airplane but
that really isn’t a recommendation, I would just like to see how it works!
Good luck with whatever.
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970630 193047 msg01253.tex]

1025
7.1. MAINT-ELECTRICAL CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Chasing Shorts
Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:54:25

In a message dated 11/9/99 8:14:00 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

The 3-amp circuit breaker on my King DME pops when I turn on the key.
If I assume this is the only device on this circuit, there’s only three things
that could cause it: 1, the DME; 2, the Circuit Breaker; & 3, the wire
between the two. Am I right on this? I ruled out the DME, because it still
does it when the DME is removed from the panel. I suppose it could be
the CB, but other than connecting it up to a power supply and gradually
increasing the amperage thru it, how do you check a CB? To check the
wire, it’s going to be a pain in the ***.

Good Morning Jerry,

Even if your CB is popping at a much lower current draw than it should, it wouldn’t
pop if there was no place for the power to go, so there must be some sort of a current
draw downstream of the CB besides the DME.
I suppose there is an outside possibility of that current draw being internal to the CB,
but that is highly unlikely.
Depending on which end of the wire is the easiest to get to, I would first disconnect it
from the CB or the DME box with the DME removed. If you have disconnected the
wire at the CB and there is no continuity to ground, the problem is in the CB. If you
disconnect the input at the DME box, pull the CB (or leave it popped it if can’t be
pulled) and check for continuity to ground. If the line is clear, the problem is in the
DME sleeve attachment hardware. If you find that the wire itself is the culprit and
you are certain there is nothing else on the circuit, the easiest thing to do would be to
just disconnect it and run a new wire to the DME box. I would caution, though, that
you still wouldn’t know what was causing the problem and whatever point is grounding
the DME wire might be causing difficulty with other wires in the same bundle. More
trouble could be lurking to bite later. I rather think the highest probabilities are for
some difficulty with the hardware of the DME sleeve.
Hope that helps!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991109 095425 msg10358.tex]

1026
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.1. MAINT-ELECTRICAL

Chasing Shorts
Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:39:12

In a message dated 11/9/99 8:14:00 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

The 3-amp circuit breaker on my King DME pops when I turn on the key.

Good Morning Once Again Jerry,

I meant to comment on this sentence, but hit the send key a little too soon! If your
aircraft is still wired so that the key must be on to ground the master relay, I would
suggest that it be changed.
That was done in 1945 to make the airplane more like a car. Every time you move
the key switch, power is broken to the relay and it clicks on and off. With vacuum
tube radios and heavy cathode heater circuits, it didn’t cause many problems. As more
modern electronics were installed, it has caused many problems with databases, user
stored information and other rapid processing electronic equipment.
You can load a flight plan in your fancy flight management navigation computer and
when you check the mags, all will be lost!
The ground from the master relay goes from the relay to the master switch, then to a
wafer on the ignition switch and on to a ground.
To fix it, disconnect the wire at the master switch which goes to the wafer switch. Run
a wire from the master switch direct to ground and the problem is solved!
That is the way all of the Modern Bonanzas are wired.
As to the legalities of doing this modification, I consider it to be a minor modification
and feel that all that is required is a log book entry by an ”A” licensed mechanic or
other entity authorized to perform minor alterations. Many IAs and FEDs disagree and
feel that a 337 should be prepared and submitted. In either case, I have never found
anyone who did not feel that the change was desirable!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991109 103912 msg10363.tex]

1027
7.1. MAINT-ELECTRICAL CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Circuit Breakers
Sun, 12 Jul 1998 10:17:54

Good Morning John,

If you are replacing original Beech CBs, I would stick with the Potter&Bromfield units,
but if you are adding more new ones, I would use the mini units made by Klix-On. They
are about half the size and much easier to install.
I used twenty or so in my last panel rebuild and they have worked very well.
As I recall, they were somewhat cheaper than the P&Bs but I don’t have a price list
handy.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980712 101754 msg03620.tex]

1028
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.1. MAINT-ELECTRICAL

Electroluminscent Panel Repair?

Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:45:31

In a message dated 7/10/00 9:55:26 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Anyone had experience repairing/replacing these things?

Good Morning Doug,

Eight or ten years ago, Beech was repairing those at the factory. I don’t know if that
service is available from Raytheon or who you would call to find out.
If you take the thing out and look it over carefully, you may be able to see the damaged
area and clear the short yourself.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000710 134531 msg10753.tex]

1029
7.2. MAINT-ENGINE CHAPTER 7. MAINT

7.2 MAINT-ENGINE

1030
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.2. MAINT-ENGINE

Break-in
Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:51:46

Hi Gerry and all,

In a message dated 97-10-17 10:53:23 EDT, you write:

1997 wisdom seems to be that you run for five hours, or whatever the
warranty specifies, then change oil, and filter, and go to AD oil. If the
warranty doesn’t say anything against it, many suggest AD oil from minute
one.

This stuff, like ground run ins and additives is all full of a lot of old wives tails, It
probably doesn’t make a whole lot of difference what we aviators do but we all want the
best possible for our engines.
Many years ago I got a fair amount of my flying time free by going up and ”slow timing”
newly overhauled engines.
The last two engines that I personally had overhauled were done by Blueprint Engines
in Chicago. They did not run either engine before we installed it in the airframe. It was
specified that I was to run the engine for a maximum of five minutes to check for leaks
and proper setting for pressures etc.
The engine was then allowed to cool for the rest of the day and was test hopped the
next morning so as to have the benefit of the cool morning air. (It was summer time
with both engines.)
The oil specified was Aeroshell 15W/50 with Lenkite additive added. The first flight
was a twenty minute flight at about 80 percent power. After landing the engine was
checked visually and any discrepencies adjusted. The first oil change was at five hours,
next at twenty and then into normal oil change intervals. The first 50 hours were at 75
% power or better. I stayed below six thousand feet to keep the manifold pressure high
for proper ring seating. (Tough to do for Denverites!)
The first of these two engines was a 150 Lycoming in a Piper Pacer that one of my sons
and I own together, the other was an IO520BA in my V35B Bonanza.
Both engines have done quite well. The Pacer was done about twelve years ago and only
flies 50 or 60 hours per year. Compressions are great and oil consumption is nil.
The 520 was overhauled in 1990 and replaced in 1996 by a reman IO550B. The 520 had
950 hours SMOH on it when I swapped engines and was running great using about a
quart every 15 hours or so. Oil analysis was good. (I replaced the engine due to old age.
MINE!! I was afraid I wouldn’t live long enough to fly out the time on the 520 and I
wanted to try the 550. Just spending my kids inheritance!)
Certainly the experience of two engines is not significant in the over all scheme of things
but it was interesting to me to note the difference in philosophy that had come about

1031
7.2. MAINT-ENGINE CHAPTER 7. MAINT

in the intervening fifty or so years. Oil formulations and ring and barrel materials are
much improved since those earlier days which make direct comparisons difficult but I
do feel many ”experts” are still hanging on to ancient procedures just because it has
always done that way.
My engines were not run on a test cell but if a really high tech one was available I think
that is still best. If a tin cover is going to be erected over the engine to scoop are into
the cylinders or if it is going to be run on any old fashioned portable or fixed runup
stand with a test club and without proper pressurized air flow through the cylinders I
would opt for early flight.
Well that’s about it for this old mans musings!
What say all of you?
Bob
[ARTICLES/19971017 115146 msg02117.tex]

1032
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.2. MAINT-ENGINE

Case Cracks
Sun, 1 Nov 1998 09:19:38

Good Morning All,

Just a couple more comments on the cracked case situation.
The last one that I am personally aware of was on a friends 1976 airplane which he
purchased new. This is the story to the best of my recollection.
A crack was discovered by the owner after some 250 hours of operation. Continental
provided an engine and paid for shipping and installation. In another three hundred
hours, (approx.) he discovered another one. The engine was changed once again and
that engine now has around 1650 hours with no problems at all.
Both of the cracks were ones which could have been left in service by stop drilling
and filling the hole and crack with epoxy but the owner didn’t want to do that and
Continental went along with the engine swap. They did ask for owner participation on
the price of the third one to the extent of a proration based on the hours flown on the
second engine. Needless to say, my friend was very pleased with Continental’s attitude.
The 520 case and the 550 case have always been the same casting, The major differences
concern the way they are machined, More metal has to be taken out of the 550 case to
allow for the larger swing of the stroked shaft and therefore the 550 will always be the
lighter of the two.
Over the years, the case has been beefed up several times. I do believe the last time was
only four or five years ago, so any 520 or 550 that has been the recipient of a new case in
that time has as heavy a case as is available. The factory and several of the overhaulers
have even been adding the seventh stud to the 520s ever since the last case beef up. (Or
thereabouts, the stud can be added to the earlier case as well.)
Is that enough rambling for this morning?
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981101 091938 msg06548.tex]

1033
7.2. MAINT-ENGINE CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Compression Test
Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:01:56

In a message dated 3/10/99 9:24:34 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

Bob:
Fair enough.

Good Morning Tom,

First I must apologize to the group. I meant to send the comment to Tom concerning
compression ratios and ”compression” tests directly to him and not to the group.
His discussion of the pros and cons of turbo flight operation were excellent and inclusive.
Please accept my apology for my lack of computer efficiency and proficiency.
I will attempt to answer the questions raised.

Question: if you pump 80 psi into a ”high compression” cylinder, and 80

psi into a ”low compression” cylinder, should they have similar ”output”
compression values?

If the cylinders are the same size, the valves are the same and they are both in the same
condition, the leakage will be identical.
What you are measuring is the amount of air that goes past the rings, valves, leaky
sparkplugs or other cracks and holes that are in the cylinder assembly.

Am I completely missing the boat about what a ”low compression” cylinder

means?

I don’t think so. Low compression just means that there is a bigger space in the head
area for the contents of the cylinder to be squished into when the piston is at top dead
center. Less head volume, higher compression, more head volume, lower compression.

Or should low compression cylinders be tested at a lower ”input” air pres-

sure to begin with?

No, that is not necessary but it should be noted that different engines will have different
standard or acceptable ”compression” test results. The air loss or pressure drop across
the orifice is affected by the diameter of the bore, the fit of the piston, rings, valves
and any leaks that might be around the spark plugs or cracks and other failures in the
assembly.
As an example, the orifice size recommended for checking a P&W 1340 is larger than
the one we use for our normal GA sized engines,
The Comparative Compression Tester consists of two air pressure gauges mounted to a

1034
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.2. MAINT-ENGINE

manifold with a calibrated orifice between the gauges. If my memory serves me correctly,
it is bored to around .060 inches for our little engines.
The reading of 75 over 80, or whatever the number, is a measurement of the air pressure
applied just before the orifice and the air pressure as it comes out of the orifice. If
80 pounds is applied to the input side and the outflow after the orifice is completely
blocked, the output gauge would also read 80 pounds. If there is any leakage in the
system to which the downstream side of the orifice is connected, the pressure will drop
by an amount that is in a ratio dependent on the total amount of air that is lost through
whatever device is being tested. In our case we are generally testing a cylinder assembly.

I know the output numbers in the 58TC are ”low”, but then again, those
engines are old and now sitting on the floor in Fairhope.

IF they use the same rings, valves and fits of the comparable normally aspirated engine,
the comparative compression’s would be the same, therefore your low compression’s are
likely a result of them being just plain worn out!

Please help me better understand this. As I’ve tried to make clear many,
many times, I’m not a mechanic, but I try to pass along the best possible
information I can find from those like you who are. Thanks for helping
Gene, and educating me, by responding.

Tom, you do a great job for the industry, I just wish I had sent that message to you
directly instead of broadcasting it to the world!
Happy Skies to ALL,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990310 130156 msg02724.tex]

1035
7.2. MAINT-ENGINE CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Condensation
Thu, 15 Jul 1999 12:19:35

In a message dated 7/15/99 10:32:55 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Now that my IO 520 BB has been overhauled, it collects condensation

around the oil filler cap. The filler tube has been replaced with a different
type to accommodate the extra cylinder stud fitted with the new cylinders.
The engine did not collect this condensation prior the full overhaul. Any
clues please? Bill Finlen

Good Morning Bill,

I think the primary problem is a low in-flight oil temperature.
It’s a tough deal, the vernatherms don’t seem to be able to hold the temps as consistently
warm as one would expect. I wonder why the thermostats in cars, that only cost a couple
of bucks, are capable of doing so much better job than the vernatherms at a couple of
hundred?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990715 121935 msg06040.tex]

1036
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.2. MAINT-ENGINE

Engine Vibration
Mon, 5 Jan 1998 12:34:09

Good Morning Kyle,

In a message dated 98-01-05 11:49:27 EST, you write:

The vibration is not bad at 2450 RPM but as you slow the RPM the
vibration increases. It is also noticable during high power climbs after
takeoff and on missed approaches.
Any suggestions?

One thing that is occasionally missed when looking for vibration is the possibility of the
engine being ”tied” to the airframe by throttle cables, hoses etc. Some mechanics in
their zeal to clean up the engine compartment will bundle and tie wrap so many things
together that it actually stiffens the engine connection to the airframe and transmits
vibration to the airframe that should be dampened or absorbed by the mounts. Be sure
that everything connected to the engine is done so in a manner that will allow the engine
to move freely. They really do jump around!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19980105 123409 msg00093.tex]

1037
7.2. MAINT-ENGINE CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Field Overhaul
Sun, 7 Nov 1999 10:35:14

In a message dated 11/7/99 9:19:49 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I have a ”field overhaul” in my K-35 and that I would put up against any
factory reman. In the end it all depends on the person doing the work,
their standards and integrity. Skip Weld

Good Morning Skip,

Absolutely true!!
Unfortunately, not all of the field overhaulers do all of the requisite measuring and
checking before assembly. It is too easy to assume that whoever you sent the components
to for machine work did everything correctly. The care taken in fitting the rings, checking
valve seating and all the other fits and measurements is what makes an overhaul a good
one.
It is not at all certain that those assemblers at the factory will use the care required to
fine tune the assembly or that they will do the quality control inspections that are the
last defense against a substandard part being used.
As you stated: ”In the end it all depends on the person doing the work, their standards
and integrity. ”
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991107 103514 msg10272.tex]

1038
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.2. MAINT-ENGINE

Fine Wire Plugs

Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:33:17

Good Morning Ray Lockhart,

Thanks for the RAM information.
In a message dated 98-08-11 11:11:17 EDT, you write:

That aside, I am unhappy that I let my FBO talk me out of fine wire plugs
for the new engine.

I started using platinum fine wire plugs in my E185 engines back in the middle 50s. The
common old wives tale was that they would fire a very lean mixture more comfortably
and as I was operating considerably on the lean side of best power in those engines, I
was very interested. I was able to buy used ones rather economically and would run
them another couple of hundred hours before the electrodes got so thin that I wanted
to replace them.
I don’t know if it really helped or not, but I did find them easy to clean and long lasting.
Whether it is financially viable or not, I don’t know. I am still using the current crop
of fine wire plugs in my IO550. I clean them carefully as per the latest Champion
instructions, rotate them as suggested and now have over five hundred hours on one set
and about four hundred on another. They are showing very little wear and I expect
they will last a long time. I have run well over a thousand hours on other sets over the
years.
I keep one set cleaned and ready to go. Then when I swap, I don’t have to spend time
doing the reconditioning, that is done at my leisure before the next inspection.
It works for me!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980811 113317 msg04201.tex]

1039
7.2. MAINT-ENGINE CHAPTER 7. MAINT

High CHT
Fri, 25 Aug 2000 09:45:14

In a message dated 8/25/00 12:24:12 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

For one I am not very familiar with the unit, however, on climb cylinder 2
showed temp which were above the alarm limits, at about 490. At cruise,
with full mixture, this cylinder continued to show temp at 400 plus. The
other cylinders in cruise were about 320 to 360 F.

Good Morning Rajesh,

I am looking forward to George’s answer, but in the meantime:
I assume you have the stock Beech baffling? With that setup, the number two cylinder
is generally the hottest. In fact it is often atrociously so. Since the rest of your cylinders
are at reasonable temperatures, the possible culprit is likely to be baffling, the probe or
a mixture problem, in that order.
While the better answer to the baffling problem is to modify the baffling, there are some
things that will help even with the stock junk.
The first thing is to make sure that the baffling you do have is fitting properly and that
there are no little holes or gaps which are allowing any of that precious air to escape
without being warmed as much as possible!
Some folks have had good luck lowering number two cylinder temperatures by rotating
the left magneto gear a tooth or two so that the mag is almost touching the cowl door
when it is at the proper firing index. That opens up the area and allows in more air to
number two. I haven’t tried it myself though.
Another avenue is to relocate the wiring harness up higher off the engine. Some folks
feel the wires are blocking the airflow. Raising them allows a more direct path for the
air to get to the back of the engine.
There is always the possibility of a faulty probe. I would try just switching the probes
between number four and number two cylinders. Don’t rewire them, just put the number
four probe, still hooked up to the number four position of the gauge, into the number
two well and vice versa.
If the temp follows the probe, it is faulty. If the number four indication becomes the
hot one, the cylinder is running warm!
To check the Gamijector for proper flow, switch the number one and number two injec-
tors.
If the high temp sticks with number two, go to work on the baffling. While I am certain
George’s new baffle system will be the greatest ever, I think the best presently available
on the market is the one supplied by BDS. Don’t let anyone talk you into putting those

1040
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.2. MAINT-ENGINE

extra louvers in the side skin or the new style louvers on the side cowl plates. They just
aren’t necessary if the baffling is properly installed and sealed.
Good luck!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000825 094514 msg12553.tex]

1041
7.2. MAINT-ENGINE CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Idle Speed
Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:17:06

In a message dated 2/24/00 6:07:47 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Could someone please tell me what is an appropriate ”idle” speed for the
IO520-BA? 1970 V35B

Good Morning Steve,

From the P/N36-590001-9A19 Bonanza Maintenance Manual dated March 29, 1996,
Chapter 71-00-00, Page 7, ” The engine tachometer should indicate 625-650 rpm (normal
idle setting).”
Personally, I tend to set them on the low side or a little lower but recommend that they
normally be operated a little faster. Why, well I prefer to have the engine idle as slow as
practical if I am trying to get stopped on a slippery surface, but I think it is advisable
to operate it a little faster, around a thousand RPM or so, for best lubrication. If it
tends to die about the time you turn off the runway, either the idle is too slow or the
idle mixture is a little off! If it doesn’t tend to die or lope, it is probably OK.
My friends who have the same basic engine on their seaplanes get them to idle down in
the 350 to 400 range with judicious tweaking and careful operation!
Did somebody say, it depends?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000224 091706 msg03494.tex]

1042
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.2. MAINT-ENGINE

Iridium Plugs
Fri, 4 Aug 2000 14:03:13

In a message dated 8/4/00 9:39:42 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

It is coming up time to replace the sparkplugs on my IO-520. Does anyone

have any opinions on whether Iridium plugs are worth the money??
Peter Tracy Bishop, California A36 N54DG

Good Afternoon Peter,

This is not a recommendation either way, but I do use Iridium plugs in my own airplane.
I have two sets which I alternate each time I clean the plugs. One set is always cleaned,
reconditioned, rotated and ready to go.
My ’A set’ currently has 809.4 hours on them and the ’B set’, which is currently installed,
has a little over 850 hours.
Both sets are showing very little wear. The fine wires are a little easier to clean and I
have been told they will fire a lean mixture more easily. That may be an Old Wives
Tale, but I heard it about fifty years ago and have used fine wire plugs in my personal
airplanes ever since.
I found one broken insulator a few years ago and I had one plug fail last January. Over
all, I am happy with the results.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000804 140313 msg11733.tex]

1043
7.2. MAINT-ENGINE CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Oil Leak
Tue, 8 Feb 2000 09:19:03

In a message dated 2/7/00 11:33:29 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Has anyone had similar problem, or have any ideas on how to locate this
leak? It is currently minor, but the engine has run very clean for the 600
hrs since factory overhaul. It is the IO-520BB engine and uses very little
oil; maybe 1 qt per 20 hrs. Thanks Bill S-35 N8985M

Good Morning Bill,

Occasionally, a minor oil leak around the front crankshaft oil seal will be hard to spot.
That can be a bad seal or too much pressure in the crankcase.
Have you checked the gasket in the oil dip stick cap? If it is not sealing tightly, the
higher pressure in the plenum above the engine may increase the crankcase pressure
enough to cause a minor front oil seal leak.
Another potential problem that will increase crankcase pressure is a restricted breather
line. Even repositioning the pipe as it leaves the cowling can make a difference.
If everything else is OK, try replacing the front oil seal. It isn’t all that bad a job. I
would check to be sure that your mechanic has experience in replacing them though.
There is a fair amount of technique involved. Not a difficult job, but it is easy to damage
the seal.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000208 091903 msg02572.tex]

1044
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.2. MAINT-ENGINE

Oil Temperature
Sun, 18 Jan 1998 11:02:06

Good Morning Alex Weeks,

In a message dated 98-01-18 10:19:42 EST, you write:

I’m perplexed and feeling a sense of urgency to get this [low oil temperature]
resolved. I suspect that I am causing engine damage as we speak.

I would go easy on the methods you have used to try and get the oil temperature up.
The oil cooling system is just that, an OIL COOLING system. Trying to develop more
heat in the engine for the purpose of raising the oil temp is not a good idea.
The answer is to cool the oil less.
You didn’t mention what airplane and engine you have. On the early airplanes there
was a tube running from the engine baffles to the oil radiator in which a damper could
be installed and the oil temperature was relatively easy to control. Unfortunately that
took pilot attention which was not always there. The newer machines use a ”Veratherm”
valve to control the flow of oil through the oil radiator and regulate the temperature.
They don’t seem to work very well. I have replaced them and found some improvement
but most engines still seem to run too cold. I will occasionally cover a portion of the
radiator to help warm things up.
Be careful to make sure that the temperature gauge you are relying on is accurate.
The factory units are notoriously inaccurate. The temperature probe can be put in a
container of water and heated up to check the accuracy.
I am sure there are better methods, but I usually steal two or three candy and baking
thermometers from my wifes kitchen. With them in the same container I heat the water
slowly and take readings from all of the thermometers and the aircraft gauge as the
water warms up. When the water boils you can get a fair idea of the relative accuracy
of the thermometers you are using.
I don’t think it is legal, but I generally end up covering a portion of my oil radiator
in the winter to raise the oil temperature. I would much prefer an adjustable air flow
limiting device such as were found on the very early airplanes but I don’t know of any
that are approved. Perhaps we will get some other ideas from the group.
Your method of checking for the white residue is valid. I try to look at the oil cap after
every flight and if the stuff is on the cap, I’d take action to reduce the engine oil cooling.
Be careful though, that you don’t get the oil too hot. I would love to put a controllable
shutter or other airflow limiting device on my personal airplane. The disadvantage is
that it would be another control that might be forgotten when one is busy.
When you consider how easy it is to control the water temperature in our automobiles
it is amazing to me that we don’t have the capability of controlling the oil tempera-
ture better. The Veratherm units cost one hundred times as much as the automobile

1045
7.2. MAINT-ENGINE CHAPTER 7. MAINT

thermostats and don’t seem to work anywhere near as well. I am undoubtedly missing
something here and would love to learn what it is.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19980118 110206 msg00355.tex]

1046
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.2. MAINT-ENGINE

Oil Type
Wed, 9 Feb 2000 11:06:15

In a message dated 2/9/00 9:11:00 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

The bottom line: You can use single weight, multi-vis, petroleum based or
synthetic, it really makes little difference. What is important is to have
enough of it and to change it on a regular basis. Many people believe that
the synthetic and semi-synthetic last longer, pick up fewer impurities and
are not as susceptible to changes in pH values. As a consequence, they
tend to go longer between oil changes and that is deadly on an engine.

Good Morning Wes,

I am certainly no expert on oil or lubrication, but my current thinking parallels the
thoughts expressed by you in the message from which I have excerpted a paragraph.
I would like to add an anecdotal comment that likely has absolutely no bearing on the
subject at all!
Many years ago in land far, far away I was gainfully employed as a pilot for the United
Air Lines. We were operating a bunch of airplanes with those big round P & W and
Wright engines. The ones I flew ranged from the R-1830 up to the Turbo Compound
R-3350.
The interesting thing is that United Air Lines did not change the oil unless they found
metal in the sump, changed a cylinder due to a hole in a piston or otherwise had an
indication that foreign substances might have found a way into the crankcase!
I guess it could be said that there was a constant oil change as we added a LOT of oil
almost every time the aircraft were fueled, especially on the R-3350.
(When the DC-7 first came out, we started flying them nonstop all of the way across
the USA. It wasn’t unusual to feather an engine because of low oil quantity before we
made it to the west coast, an eight and a half hour trip. As I recall, the oil tanks held
some 46 gallons of oil per engine!)
The thing we had going for us was that the airplanes flew regularly. They averaged eight
to ten hours a day for the long haul ones.
When I started with UAL in 1951, the R-2800s were being overhauled each 600 hours.
There was a procedure (probably still is) whereby time extensions were granted on the
TBO by monitoring engine wear. A few engines were allowed to go an extra hundred
hours or so, torn down and evaluated. If all was well, we were granted dispensation from
the Pope, oops, I mean the CAA, (now the FAA) to raise the TBO another hundred
hours. By the time the fleet was retired, we had the R-2800 engines up to something
close to 4000 hours TBO and the R-3350s close to 3500.

1047
7.2. MAINT-ENGINE CHAPTER 7. MAINT

The procedure to never change oil always bothered me based on what I had observed at
a flight school where I instructed before I went to flying the big iron. We were operating
a fleet of twenty brand new Piper PA-11 aircraft for primary instruction.
The usual argument as to how often oil should be changed was waged vigorously and
often. (Nothing changes, does it?)
My boss decided to run an experiment. Most of the fleet was put on the usual every
one hundred hour oil change schedule. Two of the airplanes were placed on a regime of
oil changes each twenty-five hours. The thought was to see which engines had the least
wear at the mandatory six hundred hour TBO.
The amount of oil added to each airplane, including the oil changes, was meticulously
recorded.
The experiment never went to TBO as it became obvious after a couple of hundred
hours that the airplanes whose oil was being changed every twenty-five hours used less
oil, including the oil changes, than did those which were changed each hundred hours.
All of the aircraft were switched to the twenty-five hour oil change program.
I tried to get UAL to give the idea a try, but never got anywhere at all. I still think
they would have used less oil and gotten even better engine life by changing oil, but I
certainly can’t prove it!
Primarily due to observing the success of the PA-11 experiment, I have been a proponent
of changing the oil when it gets dirty. That generally seems to be around twenty-five to
thirty hours.
I have read all of the data proving that oil never wears out. I am sure that is true. The
additives are another story and the dirt won’t go away by itself!
It does seem a shame to throw all that good stuff away with the bad. I wonder what
happened to all of the re-refiners?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000209 110615 msg02655.tex]

1048
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.2. MAINT-ENGINE

Static RPM
Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:04:44

In a message dated 11/22/00 7:17:28 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I just don’t understand why the static rpm is so important, after all,
the environment that it’s going to be operating in, is moving thru the air,
similar to take-off; where I would think my 2650 would be even better than
the 2600 called for.

Good Morning Jerry,

I am going to tackle this one first! I may not find the time to get to the rest during the
Holidays.
If you will recall, I commented that the static RPM may tell you if the power output of
your engine has changed.
Let’s first assume that you are flying an airplane equipped with a fixed pitch propellor,
possibly a Piper J-3 Cub. You are parked at some spot, say sea level, and the atmospheric
conditions are at the level considered as the standard day. If you run the engine at full
throttle, the tachometer will read some certain RPM. If you come back another day, and
the conditions are the same, when you make the same static check, the RPM will be the
same as the other time, provided that the power output is the same. Should something
go wrong with the engine, when you try the full power static check, the RPM will be
less. The engine can’t turn that propellor as fast because it is developing less power.
If you take off the propellor you used the first time and replace it with one that has
a flatter pitch, the RPM will be higher, maybe even as high as it had been with the
original propellor, but the power output will still be less because the torque is not as
high. The engine is not doing as much work even though the RPM is the same.
If you take the propellor off and replace it with a flywheel, you could turn it up to a
point where the internal friction of the engine either equaled the power being developed
internally or the thing exploded, but the engine would be providing no work at all and
would therefore effectively be producing no ”power.”
The propellors on all Bonanzas that I have ever seen have been controllable propellors.
Most have had some sort of a governing device so that they became a ”Constant Speed
Unit.”
Every controllable propellors that I am aware of comes equipped with some sort of
maximum and minimum pitch stops. Any time the engine, airframe and propellor is
being operated in a condition where the propellor blades are against the blade pitch
stops, the propellor is effectively a fixed pitch prop, just like the one on the Piper J-3
Cub.
If the flat pitch stops are adjusted to a pitch whereby full throttle at static will not bring

1049
7.2. MAINT-ENGINE CHAPTER 7. MAINT

the engine up to redline RPM, the resulting static RPM will give a good indication of
the power output of the engine, just like on the J-3.
If you move the stops back to a point where the engine could reach redline RPM, the
governor should come into play and control the pitch so that the engine remains at the
redline. If the flat pitch stops were removed entirely, the propellor could move to such a
flat pitch that it would be no more effective in providing thrust than would a flywheel.
The engine could be at redline RPM and be producing no thrust at all.
Your engine is turning 2650 during a condition where the load on the propellor is con-
siderably less than it is with that ”fixed pitch” prop during the static runup.
You are correct when you say that your engine is producing more horsepower at 2650
than it would be at 2600, but it is still way below what it should be producing. It is
only turning that high because the load is low.
RPM alone does not provide the power, the engine must also be supplying torque, yours
is not supplying enough torque.
Most modern engine, propellor and governor combinations are capable of reaching full
redline RPM in the static condition. Consequently, making a static power check is not
as good a power check as it once was, but the relativity of the check is still valid. If the
static check RPM is lower under your normal runup conditions, something has changed
and it should be investigated.
It appears that it is normal for the J-35 with a stock engine and prop to be below the
governing range during a static runup. That would mean that the static RPM check
would be an excellent method of determining the relative power output of that engine,
propellor and governor combination.
On most of the Big Round Engines that are equipped with superchargers, we would note
the manifold pressure before engine start. At Denver it might be 24.5 inches. We would
then make a power check during the run up by setting the manifold pressure at the same
setting noted before engine start. The RPM was then checked to see if it was within
the limits specified. If it was with within those limits, we knew the power was close to
what it should be. At that relatively low power, the propellor blades were still against
the flat pitch stops and the propellor was effectively a fixed pitch prop, just like on that
old J-3. When we opened the throttle up to full takeoff manifold pressure, the engine
would develop enough power so that the governor had to tell the prop blades to take a
bigger bite to keep the RPM below redline. Since we had been able to make a power
check while the propellor was still in it’s fixed pitch position, we could be reasonably
confident that the constant speed provision of the governor was not masking a power
loss condition.
When you are in the air and the rpm is showing 2650, the only indication you have
as to how much power is being developed is the performance you are getting from the
aircraft. If it is less than it should be, the power is not there regardless of the RPM.
Incidentally, on the Douglas DC-4, we had very minimal engine instrumentation. We

1050
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.2. MAINT-ENGINE

could have an engine fail and, in some cases, the only way we could tell which one had
failed might be to watch the cylinder head temperatures to see which ones decreased.
Since the governor was happily changing the pitch of the prop to maintain the RPM and
the supercharger was busily pumping air into the intake system, the manifold pressure
and the RPM were still the same as when the engine was running! The missing ingredient
was torque and on those old R-2000s, we had no torque meter.
Any help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001122 100444 msg16557.tex]

1051
7.2. MAINT-ENGINE CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Teardown - Prop Strike

Sat, 11 Mar 2000 16:50:31

In a message dated 3/11/00 3:33:15 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob, in a case like that, once your mains are on the pavement and you’re
holding the nose off as long as you can, wouldn’t it make sense to go ahead
and pull the mixture and try to stop the prop before the nose drops down?

Good Afternoon Eric,

Our local overhaul shop (G & N at Griffith Indiana) says that he has never had crankshaft
fail the teardown inspection that was idling at the time of the prop strike, where he has
had shafts fail that had stopped rotating. He hasn’t formulated a firm opinion as to why
that is so, but feels it must have something to do with the motion causing a dynamic
that makes the pressure applied to bending less extreme.
Who knows?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000311 165031 msg04596.tex]

1052
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.2. MAINT-ENGINE

Turning Prop Backwards

Sun, 5 Dec 1999 10:34:33

In a message dated 12/5/99 8:04:46 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

(Sorry, Old Bob. Besides, I thot turning your prop backwards ran the risk
of breaking either the vanes in your vacuum pump, or something in your
mags).

Good Morning Jerry,

I hadn’t thought about the Brand ”C” oil filter adapter. All of the airplanes that I have
maintained have had the stock factory set up or Lew Gage’s unit. They all seem plenty
strong enough to accept the small pressure required to punch a hole in the filter. I use a
standard punch awl, which could probably be punched through by hand, but I generally
use a light tap from a small ball peen hammer. The pressure required is about the same
as would be used for centerpunching light metal before drilling. I punch the hole at the
top alongside the tangs used for safetying the filter.
As to problems of turning the prop backwards, I realize that is rather controversial. I
can only offer anecdotal information based on my experience.
I started working on airplane engines in 1946 as an apprentice mechanic. I went through
Aviation Mechanic training in the military shortly thereafter and have been actively
working on flying machines ever since.
Each and every time that I have either assisted another mechanic or timed a magneto to
an engine by myself, it has been standard procedure to rotate the propellor forward and
backward during the process to locate top dead center, ”drop off” the impulse pawls, if
installed, and eliminate slack in the gears.
I am not aware of any condition where turning a magneto backwards will cause a prob-
lem, but then, I am not familiar with all magnetos either!
There was an AD many years ago cautioning against turning the E engine backwards
due to the possibility of an oil check valve hanging up that would blow an oil line. That
worried us at the time, but it was pretty well determined that the gentle slow backward
rotation of the propellor during routine maintenance was not the problem. It was when
the engine misfired and spun rapidly backwards during the start procedure that the line
would blow off. As I recall, removing the offending valve eliminated the problem.
As to the failure of the dry vacuum or pressure pump vanes being caused by backward
rotation, that is only a consideration on some of the pumps. Others can be rotated in
either direction. The ones which are canted will not break unless they are very well
worn and close to failure anyhow. Once again, the problem generally occurs following a
misfire or other event wherein the prop is spun backwards rapidly.
Personally, I change the pump about every 800 hours. I installed one of the clear filters

1053
7.2. MAINT-ENGINE CHAPTER 7. MAINT

and if starts to show a rapid increase in carbon dust accumulated, I will change it early.
The only pump failure I have had on this airplane was on the pump which was on the
airplane when I bought it. I don’t know what the history was on that pump.
My Cessna friends have been discussing a problem with some of the starters on the
late model six cylinder Continental engines. It appears that when the engine is rotated
backwards, there is the possibility of the spring which grips the starter drive shaft
hanging up and causing scoring and eventual failure of the starter drive unit. I have
never had one of those assemblies apart and can’t speak to the problem from personal
experience, but I did ask one of the Continental reps about the situation at Sun ’n Fun
last spring. I was told that it could be a problem, but once again, that it generally only
occurred during a misfire or other rapid backwards rotation. I was told that if I was
turning the prop backwards, I should note the force required and if it seemed to hang
up, the starter drive was likely to be the problem.
I change my oil when it gets dirty or at around thirty to thirty-five hours, whichever
happens first. That means that I change my oil about eight to ten times a year and
I do take every move I can to keep it as easy and clean as possible! That includes
the GENTLE backwards rotation to pump the residual oil out of the filter base as I
described in the earlier post.
An oil sample is submitted and the filter is changed each time. I don’t open the filter
every time, but I do save the filter. If the oil sample were to show a problem, I would
open and inspect the filter. I do open and inspect it at each one hundred hour inspection,
but I don’t do those every one hundred hours!
As always, each of us must determine what works best for us!
I have been doing it this way for over fifty-three years. If I find something that works
better or come upon a problem that I have not recognized, I will be glad to change.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS Have you tried to straighten your door yet?
[ARTICLES/19991205 103433 msg11628.tex]

1054
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.3. MAINT-ESERIES

7.3 MAINT-ESERIES

1055
7.3. MAINT-ESERIES CHAPTER 7. MAINT

AD 98-13-02 - Slippage Mark

Wed, 1 Jul 1998 18:21:14

Good Evening Scott Derrick,

In a message dated 98-07-01 17:37:21 EDT, you write:

It also requires a ”white slippage mark”??? The text from the AD reads
as follows:
- marking a white slippage mark on the outside surface of the airspeed
indicator between the glass and case;
What does this mean in plain english?? What airspeeds are the lower and
upper limit?? Do they mean I have to remove the glass from the airspeed
indicator to make the mark?? What is a slippage??

You may mark the AD mandated speeds on the outside of the glass, they do not have
to be on the instrument face. Hopefully this will be just a temporary restriction until
the problem is further researched.
The white mark on the case should be placed on the glass and the case in such a manner
so that if the glass should rotate, it will be obvious. Since the marks for the speeds are
only required to be on the glass, if the glass should rotate or slip, the speed marks would
be inaccurate.
The white mark to detect slippage is a standard method of compliance when limitations
are place on the glass and not on the instrument face.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980701 182114 msg03464.tex]

1056
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.3. MAINT-ESERIES

Power Setting/Weight
Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:52:59

Good Morning Thomas,

In a message dated 3/15/01 2:14:52 AM Central Standard Time, you wrote:

Question a.)
Original engine’s cruise power setting for example was at SL 2050 RPM
25.1 IN HG at 139 HP standard day (ISA) so what will be the setting now
???

As far as the engine is concerned, the maximum allowable cruise power would be 27.5
inches at 2050 RPM. However you must not cruise at any power which would drive the
airplane faster than any limiting airspeeds that are applicable to your airplane. Has
your airplane gone through the procedure to lift the speed restrictions yet?
To set something around 139 horsepower, try 23.3 inches of MP.
The relationship between power settings for the E-225-8 and E-185-1 can be roughly
determined by dividing 27.5 by 29.6. That gives just under 93 per cent. Multiply any of
the manifold pressures given on the E-185-1 chart by that number and it will be close to
the manifold pressure required to get the same horsepower from the E-225-8. Obviously,
it would be helpful to get a power chart for the E-225-8, but the above number will get
you going.

Question b.)
Beech Germany made the weighing after the plane was painted back in
1995. The record says, that the weight with the fuel (19 gal - 114 and 34
gal - 204 ) was 2241 lbs. So decreasing the weight of the fuel - 318 lbs they
came up with 1923 lbs empty.
(Me, my girlfriend and pilot bag makes me nearly come out of the envelope.)

The procedure they used is a common and acceptable procedure, but I don’t like it!
Getting an accurate empty weight is not an easy thing to do.
Your wing fuel tanks most likely hold between 20.5 and 21 gallons each. Fuel will weigh
somewhere between 5.8 and 6 pounds per gallon. The only way to get precise figures
is to drain the tanks completely. That isn’t perfect. There may still be a discrepancy
between the amount of fuel that can be drained out and that which will be taken out by
running the engine dry, but it will be closer than the procedure of weighing the airplane
with the tanks full. If you figure that you had 60 gallons on board, use 6 pounds per
gallon and subtract 360 pounds from the 2241, you arrive at 1881. Still not good, but
not as bad as your numbers show!
The scales used must be certified and accurate.

1057
7.3. MAINT-ESERIES CHAPTER 7. MAINT

I have seen electronic sales in good high priced maintenance shops which had directions
which showed that their accuracy was only certified to be within two percent. Two
percent of 2241 is 44.82 pounds. That is a big error! And that is only if the scales are
within their certified accuracy!
There are scales available which have a certified accuracy of one-tenth of one percent.
There is no unusable fuel in the Bonanza wing tanks. The 1550 target empty weight by
Beechcraft was with the tanks empty. They then added one half gallon of unusable fuel
per wing tank to arrive at the 1550 weight. To be able to compare your weights with
those of other early Bonanzas, you need to use the same techniques.
The unusable fuel in the aux tank is harder to determine. How much gets used is
dependent on how the tank was installed and how the airplane is flown while the tank
is being emptied. If it were my airplane, I would take the tank out for the weighing
procedure, weigh it separately when empty, then use that number for the precise empty
weight.
Look the airplane over carefully and get rid of anything that you don’t need for your
regular operations.
Do you really need all of the radios that are installed? Are there modern, lighter weight
units that could be installed instead of some old heavy stuff?
The E-225-8 weighs only three pounds more than the E-185-1, but there are starters
and generators that are much heavier than others. Be sure that you have the lightest
ones that are available.
I don’t know anything about the German rules, but in the U.S. National Airspace
System, a single modern GPS can replace an ADF and a DME. You could get by with
one NavCom and one GPS quite well.
You might even consider leaving the baggage tank out unless you are going to fly a trip
which really needs the range.
The straight thirty five Bonanza can easily get 160 mph on eight gallons per hour. That
allows a four hour trip with a one hour reserve. For longer range, six and a half GPH
will generally deliver about 140 mph or better.
Fly the airplane at the power settings, speeds and loads for which it was designed and
it does a very nice job.

Question c.)
I guess, I will install the flaps and weigh the plane again. (probably the
girlfriend will have to stay on ground:-)

Once again, weigh the flaps while they are off of the airplane and make the proper
adjustments to the weight and balance. The first fourteen Bonanzas built had fabric
covered ailerons and flaps. Beech went to the magnesium units because they were lighter
and stronger. Unfortunately, the magnesium has proven to be susceptible to corrosion,

1058
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.3. MAINT-ESERIES

if not properly cared for.

If you want maximum payload capability from your airplane, use the flaps which Beech
planned for it. Get magnesium ones. There is nothing wrong with them if they are
properly maintained! It does take an extra effort though.

Greetings Thomas BE35 D-EBCM (S/N D-1497)

And Greetings to you Thomas!

That airplane is a wonderful, light weight flying machine. Don’t try to make it into a
heavy, high powered machine that it wasn’t designed to be.
My last straight 35 had a full W.W.II era gyro panel with 60 pounds of 1950s style radio
equipment. I didn’t have an aux tank because I needed the weight to haul my family. I
flew it IFR in all weather all around the USA. Many times I couldn’t even carry the full
forty gallons due to the weight of wife and kids, but we still seemed to get every place
we wanted to go. A stop every couple of hours for fuel isn’t so bad with a bunch of little
kids.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010315 095259 msg05922.tex]

1059
7.3. MAINT-ESERIES CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Rear Seat
Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:02:01

To Frank Kelly
It sounds like you have a model 35 with the steel tube brace across the back of the rear
seat.
The bar is part of the structure of the airplane. As you probably know, the airplane
is not legal to fly without that bar installed. When those early airplanes were used for
haulng litter patients, there was a steel bar to be inserted between the sidewalls to keep
them from collapsing inward! What this tells us is that flight load pressures are shoving
the sides in.
When I have to take the rear seat out of the older airplanes, I put a jack between the
sidewalls (properly protected of course) and GENTLY spread them out about an eighth
of an inch. I can then ease the seat out without too much trouble. I know it seems
terrible to do that to a beautiful Bonanza but it seems to work!
I remember years ago I was at a shop where they had made a real neat unit to do that
job. It consisted of some steel tubing with padded fittings on the ends and a nut and
bolt jack screw arrangement to carefully and gently spread the sidewalls apart.
A short comment on the retractable step.
Many years ago I rigged one up so that it could be retracted and extended in flight by
my oldest son while he sat in the baggage compartment. (He was five then, he is forty
seven now!) We found that there was about 5 mph difference at 140 mph indicated.
Definitely drag worth getting rid of.
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19971003 110201 msg01915.tex]

1060
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.3. MAINT-ESERIES

Wobble Pump Problem

Fri, 28 Aug 1998 02:31:03

Good Morning Mike McGahan,

In a message dated 98-08-27 21:44:07 EDT, you write:

The wobble pump generates sporadic pressure but not enough to prime the
engine. So now I keep a can of starting fluid to get going.

I would start off by determining the cause of your hard starting problem. If the wobble
pump is working properly and the PS5C is set up correctly, the priming should work
fine, and I think better, with the hand wobble than with the electric pump.
How long has it been since the PS5C was overhauled?
How about the seals in the wobble pump?
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980828 023103 msg04914.tex]

1061
7.3. MAINT-ESERIES CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Wobble and Electric Boost Pumps

Thu, 12 Aug 1999 13:24:14

In a message dated 8/12/99 10:23:36 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Has anyone actually flown the Bonanza’s on the hand pump?? can it be
done and for how long? physical fittnes would play a role but, if you were
in the mountains could you maintain altitude?

Just A Follow Up,

I have noted a fair number of hand pumps which have been allowed to wear to the
point that they aren’t really doing their job. Just as with any other component, proper
maintenance is required if the unit is to be available when needed.
The proliferation of electric boost pumps being added to the early airplanes has led to
the situation where many folks never use the hand pump for starting. I think that is
mistake as starting is the time when you can tell if your hand pump and carburetor
are doing their thing properly. If the pump is pumping properly and the carburetor
enrichment mechanism is performing as it should, starts in all temperatures should be
a piece of cake. I would make it a practice to start the engine with the hand pump and
then after the engine is running and stabilized, turn on the electric pump to check it’s
operation. The engine should be a little flooded and stumble. Another method to check
the operation of either the hand pump or the electric is to shove the mixture to full rich
and the throttle wide open. Place a container at the point of outflow of the manifold
drain and note the amount of fuel that is pumped out with ten seconds of operation.
Do that every few months and if the amount of fuel pumped decreases, the pump is
wearing out or the enrichment function of the carburetor is deficient!
Obviously, that check should only be done when an engine start is NOT imminent!
As to the ability to maintain altitude, the unsupercharged engine takes a lot less fuel
at altitude than it would at sea level. The amount of hand pumping required would
therefore be much less also.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990812 132414 msg06891.tex]

1062
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.4. MAINT-EXHAUST

7.4 MAINT-EXHAUST

1063
7.4. MAINT-EXHAUST CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Muffler Rebuild
Mon, 6 Oct 1997 00:48:14

Bob Newman,
In a message dated 97-10-05 20:19:17 EDT, you write:

Looking for recommendations for muffler rebuild. Also, any PMA suppliers
of new mufflers at a reasonable price?

I have been using Dawley Aviation of Burlington Wisconsin for the last several years
and have been pleased with their quality, service and price.
They do not have the authority to build a new muffler but I have sent them units
for repair that were sent back to me ”repaired” but there were NO components of the
original left!
Generally I have had no more than a couple of days turn time.
Their address is – 140 Industrial Drive, Burlington, WI 53105
Phone 800 338-5420 FAX 414 763-3725
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19971006 004814 msg01952.tex]

1064
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.5. MAINT-FLAPS

7.5 MAINT-FLAPS

1065
7.5. MAINT-FLAPS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Drooping Flap
Wed, 16 Aug 2000 23:08:36

In a message dated 8/16/00 5:58:01 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I also remember noticing that in cruise the plane has been a bit left wing
heavy in cruise (drooping flap?) and that the autopilot carried a bit of
right aeileron in level flight.So perhaps the situation has been gradually
deteriorating–although perhaps not.
Does anyone have any ideas? Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Peter Tracy Bishop, California A36 N54DG

Good Evening Peter,

Lot’s of possibilities! The limit switch for the flap system is on the left flap. Both flaps
are driven by the same motor. The shaft goes through the drive unit and a fitting is
located on both the left and right side which drives the associated flap. If something
should happen that made the right drive cable fitting slip or jump a little bit, the
condition you describe could occur.
There was an AD or service bulletin that concerned the fitting a few years ago, but I
don’t have it handy. As I recall there were some that came out of the factory with a
missing piece or maybe the wrong fitting.
I would check on the applicable SB or AD and go from there.
There is no reason the flaps should change their position relative to each other unless
one or the other of the drive cables has slipped a cog or two.
Another possibility might be if the right flap actuator fitting is in the process of breaking
off. When big fat guys like me step down too hard on the trailing edge of the flap, it puts
a tremendous strain on the point where the flap actuator attaches to the flap. They
have been known to tear out. If it were starting to fail, there might be a noticeable
difference before it fails totally. Run the flaps down and look at the fitting.
Off the top of my head, I think the most likely scenario is a cable that has slipped a cog!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000816 230836 msg12244.tex]

1066
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.5. MAINT-FLAPS

Drooping Flap
Wed, 16 Aug 2000 23:15:46

In a message dated 8/16/00 10:11:08 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

If something should happen that made the right drive cable fitting slip or
jump a little bit, the condition you describe could occur.

Good Evening Peter,

The statement above is in error. If either fitting slips, the condition you describe would
occur. The flap limit switches are actuated by the left flap position and will stop that
flap in the right spot regardless of any slipping of the shaft. Both right and left drives
need to be checked.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000816 231546 msg12245.tex]

1067
7.5. MAINT-FLAPS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Flap Markings
Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:35:17

In a message dated 2/17/00 7:16:17 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I have yet to find instructions but Graham Haddock informed me that they
are placed on the flaps near the fuselage.

Good Morning John and Bill,

I prefer to place them on the left flap just inboard of the outboard flap track.
Whatever works for you!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000217 093517 msg03069.tex]

1068
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.5. MAINT-FLAPS

Right Flap needs reskinned?

Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:20:55

Good Afternoon Rob Condon,

In a message dated 98-08-20 12:52:15 EDT, you write:

Any other options for repairing? Finally, are there aluminum flaps available
for my aircraft?

It is not uncommon to find cracks on the right flap since it takes all of the loads of fat
old men like me jumping up and down on it.
Repairs are definitely practical. Find a good BONANZA mechanic in your area and ask
his opinion.
There is no reason to replace the magnesium flap if you don’t have to. They are plenty
strong enough for the loads applied and considerably lighter than the aluminum ones.
Once again, make sure you check with a knowledgeable mechanic who has considerable
experience with the early Bonanzas. Some of the younger folks have an unjustified fear
of the magnesium surfaces.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980820 132055 msg04601.tex]

1069
7.6. MAINT-FUEL CHAPTER 7. MAINT

7.6 MAINT-FUEL

1070
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.6. MAINT-FUEL

Blue Dye Around Injectors

Sun, 9 Jul 2000 12:42:54

In a message dated 7/9/00 11:26:13 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

At my last 100 hour inspection, we found blue dye around all of the injec-
tors. I assumed that this was associated with fouled injectors, so all of the
injectors were cleaned and reinstalled. I did a visual inspection yesterday,
and two of the injectors are showing signs of leaking again.
Is this normal?

Good Morning Bill,

Perfectly normal, it’s just the residual fuel in the lines boiling off after shut down.
Remember that there is an aeration inlet in each nozzle to allow ambient air to mix with
the fuel.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000709 124254 msg10706.tex]

1071
7.6. MAINT-FUEL CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Erratic Insight GEM

Sat, 3 Jun 2000 00:24:36

In a message dated 6/2/00 10:45:13 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Thanks, but could you expand a bit on the ground wire issue.

Good Evening Pete,

There is a wire which goes from the panel unit to the engine case to provide a positive
ground or base circuit for the transducer to work against. The potential or voltage that
has to be measured is very small, so any resistance (especially if it is variable) in the
system can cause large errors. The ground wire provided by Insight that goes to the
crankcase is a very small black covered wire. As I recall it is around a twenty-four gauge,
possibly smaller. I substituted a larger wire. I believe a 16 gauge or so. In any case, as
someone else suggested, you need to check that the continuity check from the plug on
the panel unit to the case of the engine is close to zero.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000603 002436 msg09079.tex]

1072
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.6. MAINT-FUEL

Fuel Bladder Installation Tape

Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:54:39

In a message dated 2/28/00 4:42:56 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Beech put some tape (looks like duct-tape, but you have to order the real
stuff from beech)

The proper tape is available from Aircraft Fuel Cell Repair Of Eagle River, Wisconsin.
It was fifteen bucks a roll when I last bought some a couple of years ago. That is a lot
cheaper than Beech/Raytheon charges and it is a lot better than using duct tape (which
really shouldn’t be used).
Call them at 1-800-437-8732 (great people)
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000228 175439 msg03842.tex]

1073
7.6. MAINT-FUEL CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Fuel Cap ”O” Rings

Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:54:13

In a message dated 7/17/00 9:39:17 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

The large O-ring for the N35 is a 37617-339. RAPID has none in stock,
expect some in about 90 days. I did not try to find an equivalent MS
number, since mine are in good shape.
The smaller O-ring is an MS9021-110 (actually, this cross references to a
/XX number, which I don’t have here). They are in stock at .44 ea. I’m
still waiting for mine; meanwhile I soaked the old O-rings in LPS 3 while
reassembling the cap mechanism.

Good Morning Bill And Joe,

I am not sure if you are looking for the ”fat” or the ”skinny” large diameter O ring.
Both are listed in the manual for the two different fuel caps which might be used. The
fat one is MS29513-338, the skinny one MS29513-232.
Performance Aero has them, but at a price that reflects their repackaging costs.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000717 115413 msg11046.tex]

1074
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.6. MAINT-FUEL

Fuel Cap O-Rings

Sat, 17 Mar 2001 14:32:31

In a message dated 3/17/01 1:10:19 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Performance Aero, and some others in the ABS magazine will sell you a
kit of the O-rings for a reasonable price.
From your description, the ones that are leaking are the small ones inside
the cap that seal the vertical shaft that goes through the center of the cap.
The large ones around the outside of the cap are much easier to get to.

Good Afternoon,
Be sure you check to see which caps you have! There are two different caps commonly
used on the late model Bonanzas. Each takes different sized O rings. Look at the cap,
get the manufacturers name and tell Performance Aero which one you have. They will
send you the proper size O rings. You can also get the AN or MS numbers and buy
them somewhere else, but it may well be worth the extra cost to just get them from
Performance Aero.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010317 143231 msg06065.tex]

1075
7.6. MAINT-FUEL CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Fuel Cell Repair

Mon, 22 Jun 1998 15:31:53

Good Afternoon William S. Helfand,

In a message dated 98-06-22 14:53:13 EDT, you write:

I am interested in knowing if anyone has had good or bad experiences with

any major repair/overhaul sources.

I strongly recommend Aircraft Fuel Cell Repair, 300 Airport Road, Eagle River, WI
54521. Phone: 800 437-8732 or 715 479-6149 or FAX 715 479-6344
This is the Hartwig family operation and they formerly operated an FBO at Eagle River.
Mom, Dad and the kids. They do great work, reasonably priced and very nice people.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980622 153153 msg03239.tex]

1076
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.6. MAINT-FUEL

Fuel Drains
Sat, 9 Aug 1997 13:32:08

Norm Colvin mentioned blowing air up through the fuel drain and I have done that
with good results. BE SURE AND TAKE THE FUEL CAP OFF FIRST. It works best
if the tank is NOT full. I usually wait till the tank is about half empty.
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970809 133208 msg01510.tex]

1077
7.6. MAINT-FUEL CHAPTER 7. MAINT

IO-470-C Injector Torque

Thu, 25 May 2000 10:42:51

In a message dated 5/25/00 8:22:15 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I’ve looked thru all my Continental and Bonanza manuals but cannot find
the torque for the fuel injectors on my IO-470-C. My mechanic says ”about
20 inch pounds”. Is this close enough, or does someone know the actual
recommended value?

Good Morning Jerry,

My IO-470 Manual, P/N X30588A, Page 72-50-04, states:
Fuel Injector Nozzle (With Anti-Seize Compound), Thread size 5/16-24, Torque to 55-65
inch pounds or 4.6 to 5.4 foot pounds.
I usually go to the light side of that limit.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000525 104251 msg08628.tex]

1078
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.6. MAINT-FUEL

Leaking Quick Drain

Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:30:33

In a message dated 11/1/99 7:11:10 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I have heard that another trick is to blow low pressure air up through the
valve to clean it, but the first procedure has always worked for me and I
have never had to try the air. Good Luck.

Good Evening Buz,

Norm Colvin mentions that in his book.
I have used the air up the drain procedure and had it work just fine. BUT! Be sure
the fuel cap on the appropriate tank has been removed. I have always done it when the
tank was less than full to allow for a little fuel bubbling around.
I also recommend that it be done outdoors and in a position where the only hazard will
be to the airplane on which the procedure is being performed.
I have done it by just hooking a rubber hose up over the drain fitting, holding the hose
high enough that the end is above the fuel level and then opening the drain valve. By
lowering the hose till you can see the fuel coming up and the blowing it back into the
tank you can avoid any fuel spillage. I have done it by just blowing into the hose with my
mouth. That doesn’t usually work though and most often, line air pressure is required.
In bad cases, I have found it necessary to blow the air into the tank, let it drain over
the air nozzle and then repeat that sequence four or five times before the drain clears
and the valve seats adequately.
Fuel doesn’t seem to scatter around as much as you might think, but it always scares
me when I do it!!
Sure beats pulling the tank though!!
Incidentally, I heartily recommend Carl Hartwig and his family for all fuel cell work.
Nice family and they do excellent work at competitive prices. There are a couple of
other Hartwigs in the fuel cell business. No relation to Carl. He is the one located at
Eagle River, Wisconsin.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991101 223033 msg10007.tex]

1079
7.6. MAINT-FUEL CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Leaking Sump Drains

Thu, 5 Nov 1998 20:22:45

Good Evening Mike Edwards,

In a message dated 11/5/98 6:51:30 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

I have a wing sump drain valve that’s leaking a little. I’ve tried everything
I could think, but I can’t get it to seal completely.
A mechanic told me once that it’s risky to remove the valve, because you
might damage the fuel cell. Is there a risk? Is there a ”better” way to do
it that minimizes the risk?

Norm Colvin addresses this in his book.

The suggestion is to wait till the tank is less than full, remove the fuel tank cap, then
blow high pressure air through the valve and into the tank, let it drain a bit and then
blow the air into the tank again. Hopefully, repetition of that procedure will remove
whatever is causing the valve to not seat properly.
Fuel tends to fly about and I wonder about the safety of the procedure, but it has worked
for me on occasion!
I agree with the mechanic who would rather not try to remove the fitting on anything
but an almost new tank. The possibility of damage is quite high.
It can be done, and often is, but it would be valid to try other methods before trying to
remove the drain valve assembly from the tank.
Carl Hartwig, of Aircraft Fuel Cell Repair, Eagle River, Wisconsin, has designed a fitting
to replace the standard one which will allow easy removal and replacement of the Curtis
valve. He was showing it at the ABS convention in STL. Looks good, but is not yet
certificated.
His unit can be installed without removing the fuel cell.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981105 202245 msg06720.tex]

1080
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.6. MAINT-FUEL

Osborne Tank Fuel Cap

Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:07:22

In a message dated 3/29/01 1:53:41 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

$65 each, according to a message left on my phone machine!

For a 3-dollar stopper!
Pass the transmission fluid, please. grin

Good Afternoon All,

The Moeller Manufacturing Company of Greenville, Mississippi, manufactures a line of
thermos type caps for use in large (non aviation) engine oil filler tubes. If the caps you
have for the Bellanca or the Osborne tanks can be disassembled, you might be able to
match a new rubber doughnut from Moeller to replace those 65 dollar ones.
Sorry, I don’t have a contact, maybe some of you Internet experts can come up with
one!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010329 150722 msg06813.tex]

1081
7.6. MAINT-FUEL CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Quick Drain
Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:01:04

Good Afternoon Mike,

In a message dated 3/23/99 11:32:15 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

Now I have a leaking quick drain in my main tank. I understand that the
manufacturer of the quick drains no longer supplies the ”O” ring, and you
have to buy a new unit (.05 vs $15.00). Also it is very easy to damage the
bladder when removing. Is there a fail/safe technique?
I also read on this forum that someone is working on an improved quick
drain system that protects the bladder, but it is not approved yet.

The drain takes a special seal, not an O ring, though some have mistakenly used an O
ring to stop a leak. That and the lawyers are the reason the Curtis people quit supplying
the seal to we mere mortals. Someone nailed them with a liability suite when the O ring
didn’t do the job and they were sued because they had the deep pockets. At least, that
is the way I heard it.
The drain is very hard to remove without damaging the bladder. The older the tank,
the greater the problem.
Before I tackled that, I would try Norm Colvins suggestion. Remove the fuel cap, then
open the drain and blow some air back up through the fuel. That will sometimes clear
the debris away and allow the drain to seal.
I have on occasion done it by affixing an appropriately sized hose over the fitting, lifting
the hose up above the level of the fuel, opening the quick drain valve and then blowing
into the hose either by mouth or with high pressure air. I have also done it by just
placing the air nozzle on the bottom of the fitting, opening the drain valve and then
alternately blowing and letting fuel flow threw the valve. That seems rather dangerous
to me and I don’t think I would do it anymore, especially if the airplane is anywhere
but outside and well away from other things that might burn!
The valve that the Hartwigs of Eagle Fuel Cells have invented looks like the answer. At
the ABS convention last fall I got the impression that they were planning on making it
so the unit could be installed while the tank is in place, I spoke to Karl a month ago at
a mechanic seminar and he told me that I would have to pull the tank to affix the unit.
I am not sure which is correct.
Best of luck.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990323 130104 msg03203.tex]

1082
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.6. MAINT-FUEL

Quick Drains
Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:11:53

Good Afternoon Scott Derrick

In a message dated 98-08-20 12:51:31 EDT, you write:

I have a 35 and the left quikdrain leaks alittle sometimes. I twist it back
anf forth to stop it.

Norm Colvin suggested that the fuel cap be removed and then high pressure air be blown
through the valve to dislodge whatever foriegn matter might be causing the fuel leak. I
have used that method to good advantage several times.
BE SURE TO REMOVE THE FUEL CAP FIRST!!!

Are there replacment quik drains available?? And are they easy to install??

First question - Yes

Second question - NO
It is necessary to remove the clamp and remove the fitting from the tank. That is not
easy to do on a new tank and gets progressively more difficult as the tank ages.
With older tanks it is not unusual for damage to occur during the attempted removal
which would necessitate pulling the tank and sending it in for repair. I would recommend
that it not be attempted unless you are prepared for that eventuality.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980820 131153 msg04598.tex]

1083
7.6. MAINT-FUEL CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Shadin Fuel Flow Indicator Problem

Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:53:09

Hi Bob Briggs,
I love my Shadin Miniflo dearly WHEN IT WORKS. I had quite a few teething problems
after the initial installation.
If the thing stops and then restarts again, it is most likely in the Transducer. It is nothing
more than a small turbine wheel spinning in the fuel delivery line. My first one failed
after about three hundred hours of operation. The next one had about nine hundred
hours when I took it out of service for another reason. Did you send the transducer back
to Shadin when you sent the panel unit?
I have had excellent factory support from Shadin, no gripes, but I did come across a
problem that they were unable to fix.
Every couple of weeks the unit would have it’s program messed up when I turned it on
and the whole thing would have to be removed and the initial programming redone.
I sent it in a couple of times and NO problems were found.
I noted that when I threw on my aircraft master switch, a red light would flash on the
Shadin unit even though the avionics master switch was turned off. I reasoned that it
was taking twelve or thirteen volts to energize the avionics master relay before it would
be opened. (Mine is wired in the standard Beech way, there are better ways to do it.)
Since the Shadin unit will operate on either twelve or twenty four volt systems with
no modification, I figured it was sampling the current for use and every now and then
it just blew it’s mind. I asked Shadin what they thought about it and the response I
received was: Could be!
I then established the procedure of turning off my Shadin power control switch before
shutdown and not turning it back on until after engine start and after turning on the
Avionics master switch. Since I instituted that procedure I have had about a thousand
hours of no problems.
Mine is a twenty four volt system and it is likely that the problem would not occur on a
twelve volt system. I understand that some shops wire the Shadin in without a seperate
switch. In that case I suppose the circuit breaker might be pulled, but I don’t like to
use CBs as a sytem control unless they are designed for that function.
I hope this may be of some help.
Yours,
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19971119 135309 msg02436.tex]

1084
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.6. MAINT-FUEL

Water In Tank
Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:10:32

In a message dated 9/22/00 10:43:47 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

We had a similar situation and decided it was dew on the wing leaking in
through the filler cap. Now we’re in a hangar and the problem has gone
away. Larry Templeton ’63 Deb

Good Morning Larry,

I would strongly suggest you invest in new ”O” rings for your fuel caps. Be sure to
get the right size for your caps. There have been various models used and they all use
different rings. And don’t forget the little one that goes in the middle. That is most
likely where you got the dew into your tank. The moisture sits in the handle cavity and
has plenty of time to seep through.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000922 121032 msg13887.tex]

1085
7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 7. MAINT

7.7 MAINT-LDGGEAR

1086
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR

Actuator Rod End

Thu, 27 Jan 2000 16:48:27

In a message dated 1/27/00 1:57:37 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

My airplane was 45 years old when the rod end failed and on inspection
it showed signs of having been stress cracked for some time. I recommend
that owners of older Bonanzas, 1960’s Models and older seriously consider
replacing this fitting at the next annual. It’s difficult if not impossible to
inspect and determine its structural integrity in place. Cheap insurance for
avoiding a landing with the nose gear still retracted and the result being a
potential 25 thousand dollar repair bill.

Good Afternoon Hal,

In my case the rod ends and the rod itself were in excellent condition. Something had
to give when the gear jammed against the door retract rod fitting and the rod was the
weak link.
I do agree that a lot of the rod ends and such are in marginal condition. I replaced or
rebuilt almost everything on an A35 that my second son owned a couple of years ago.
I was having trouble rigging the gear properly and each component showed some wear
but nothing was real bad. All put together though, it just wasn’t possible to get the
gear properly rigged. I see a lot of them on the flight line that look worse than my son’s
airplane did when we started!
It is a great landing gear, but it is highly stressed and needs to be maintained!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000127 164827 msg01875.tex]

1087
7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Gear Box and Motor

Wed, 5 Jan 2000 16:01:51

In a message dated 1/5/00 2:14:15 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I do have a maintenance program for my airplane, but the gear & flap
motors, I decided to do on condition. The gear motor on my 1965 Deb
started acting up in 1998 and I replaced it. The flap motor is still in there.
Mike McNamara

Good Afternoon Mike,

Doing the overhaul of those motors on condition is not a bad idea, but I think you should
add something to your standard operating procedure.
As Bill Hale mentioned, the time it takes for the gear to extend or retract changes as
the motor nears a point where service is required. The length of time is dependent on
the age of the aircraft and the voltage of the sysytem. If you will check the time on
yours with a new motor installed and the generator putting out whatever it is supposed
to, you will have a basis from which to note the change.
Another important factor is that as the brushes wear down, the gear motor will not stop
as fast via the dynamic brake system as it does when everything is up to snuff.
If the motor coasts beyond the designated point, the sector gear and it’s stops may
be damaged. Not Good! To check for proper stopping, reach down and crank the
gear handle every now and then, both in the up and the down direction. (That is of
course, ’up’ after retracting the gear and ’down’ after extending it and with proper safety
precautions of depowering the system.) There should be one quarter to one half turn on
all but the latest actuators before the stops are felt. If it is any less, the upstop switches
are out of rig, the dynamic brake is not working or the gear motor is going bad.
It will still run the gear up and down long after the point at which it needs service to
avoid banging the stops.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000105 160151 msg00261.tex]

1088
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR

Gear Case Oil Level

Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:02:20

In a message dated 1/4/00 7:39:41 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Anyway, the gear actuator worm gear plug has a small hole in it’s top and
small amounts of grease has been comming out. It looks like yellow oil.
It doesn’t look like it has been doing much, however over the years it has
added up on the floor. What, if anything can be done to stop that?

Good Morning Wayne,

Don’t over fill the actuator case!
The hole in the plug is a vent. Unless your airplane regularly sees deck angles in climb
of some thirty or forty degrees, there should be no leakage if the actuator oil is kept at
the proper level. The proper oil level is such that the oil will come half way up on the
worm gear shaft. Anymore than that will cause the leakage you are experiencing. To
check the level, remove the plug, look in the hole to spot the shaft, then while you are
looking at the shaft, turn the gear crank one quarter turn. The gear case oil should be
stiff enough to adhere to the shaft long enough for you to observe if it is at the proper
level.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000104 100220 msg00160.tex]

1089
7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Gear Extention Handle

Sun, 19 Jul 1998 22:39:35

Good Evening Christopher Raphael,

In a message dated 98-07-19 21:46:46 EDT, you write:

Actually the handle hits the edge of the indented metal cup on the floor.
At that point you close the handle and swivel it around, open it up and
get another half turn..

The handle should clear the little indented pan sufficiently to allow your fingers on the
handle as you turn the crank (Provided that your fingers are not fatter than my fat
stubby ones!) If it does not, I would check that the Hand Crank Shaft Housing, Part
Number 35-810142-2 has not been installed incorrectly.
This unit is manufactured with an angle other than 90 degrees from the face of the bolting
surface to the plane of the crankshaft and that angle should allow the crankshaft to be
angled upward slightly from the floor boards. There are three screws holding this part
to the gear housing and I suppose it could be installed rotated to the wrong position. It
has been a couple of years since I had one apart and my memory is not good enough to
recall whether it would or would not be easy to do. In any case the shaft should angle
up from the case. If it does not, something is improperly assembled.
I would suggest that this be checked post haste!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980719 223935 msg03768.tex]

1090
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR

Gear Up Landing and FAA

Sat, 11 Mar 2000 11:58:25

In a message dated 3/11/00 10:06:16 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob, or anyone, when your nose wheel refused to extend, causing the de-
scribed landing, was this an ”incident”, as far as the FAA was concerned?
or an ”accident”? What is the difference in their opinion? Does the insur-
ance co. always use the same word as the FAA to describe the occasion?
Did your insurance co. pay for most of it? What was the total, and how
much did they pay for? Did your rates go up because of it?

Good Morning Jerry,

I don’t remember what they called it in their report!
Had the incident occurred somewhere that the FEDs were not watching, I would not
have told them about it.
It is my opinion that even a gear up landing where someone forgot to extend the gear
is not a reportable accident, but the FAA seems to disagree with that interpretation.
They will generally ask the pilot to voluntarily surrender their certificate and ask that
the pilot take remedial training and a conformity check ride. It would be nice if one
of our gutsier colleagues would tell them to go take a flying leap at the moon if it ever
occurred to them, but I don’t know if I would have the guts or not. I would NOT
surrender my certificate without the advice of a knowledgeable aviation attorney.
In my case, I was about eighty miles from home when the nose gear failed to extend.
I didn’t take the airplane home, but to an airport near home where there is a large
maintenance facility that does good quality work. That airport not only has a control
tower, but the local FSDO is there. Both maintenance and flight inspectors were at the
site of the landing along with the airport fire equipment.
Both FAA groups asked that I file a report and we had a combined interview as soon
as the airplane was properly stowed in the hangar. They asked to be provided with
photocopies of the my log books showing the last few months of flying and my required
currency flights.
They were very pleasant and cooperative, but I still don’t see why they had to be
involved.
My insurance picked up the total tab. I had been with them long enough that I was a
”preferred” customer and there was no deductible. The total was right at $41,500.
The only structural damage to the airframe was to a couple of frames in the fuselage
belly which had been ripped when the nose gear actuating rod bent and tore through
the frames. In order to repair those frames, all of the cables in the belly had to be

1091
7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 7. MAINT

removed and then reinstalled and rerigged. The actual damage was rather minor but
the labor to get to it was extensive. The four blade prop that I had at the time kept the
nose bowl high enough that it was not damaged. Sure messed up the four blade though!
The engine and landing gear actuator both had to be torn down to check for possible
internal damage. This was at the insistence of the insurance company, not me. The
nose gear actuator arm on the bottom of the actuator and both the failed and the non
failed extension tubes were replaced. A new propellor and new nose gear doors finished
up the parts required list. The insurance company was very easy to deal with. I have
no complaints.
My rates did go up this year, but they claim that the incident had nothing to do with
it. Who knows?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000311 115825 msg04575.tex]

1092
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR

Gearbox Oil Level

Sun, 7 Feb 1999 01:01:29

Good Morning Nick Stratford,

In a message dated 2/6/99 3:07:07 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

Can anyone tell me how to check the landing gear gearbox oil level? After
removing the front bench seat, the only component I could see was the
motor itself with the grounding plug on top.

The spot to check the oil is at the filler plug on the gear box. It is located between the
electric motor and the manual handle on the top of the unit. It is closer to the manual
handle than the motor. On the early airplanes it is a rather standard 1/8 inch pipe plug
with a square head through which a vent hole has been drilled. On the newer airplanes
that plug was replaced with a newer type that has a small screen over the vent hole.
In either case, just remove the plug so that the worm shaft may be viewed. It should
be free of oil. Turn the hand crank one half turn and observe how much of the shaft is
covered with oil, the oil should cover no more than the bottom half of the worm gear. If
any oil is on the worm gear, it is probably enough. If the oil covers more than one half
of the diameter of the shaft, it will probably leak out.
Hope that helps!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990207 010129 msg02002.tex]

1093
7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Greasing Main Gear Trunnion Bolts and Bushings

Sun, 2 Jan 2000 22:07:13

In a message dated 1/2/00 8:41:05 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

There is no mention of any scheduled maintenance required for these points

in the service manual. I believe the earlier Bonanzas had grease fittings
here. Does anyone know why they were removed? Maybe an ”unwritten
maintenance tip” I should know about concerning this?

Good Evening IFLYV35,

I asked that question of Norm Colvin when they quit installing the fittings. His answer
was that they really didn’t need to be greased often, so the factory eliminated the fittings
as a cost saving move.
The landing gear is supposed to be removed at two thousand hours. They should be
greased at that time.
I pulled mine at two thousand hours and while there was no scoring or other defects
noted, the fittings were drier than I liked. I would recommend pulling the bolts and
bushings and hand greasing them about every one thousand hours. I suppose the number
of cycles of the gear and the chronological age would be more important than the number
of hours on the airframe! If your airplane is ever power washed in the wheel well area,
I might suggest that they be pulled even more often!
The main trunnion bolts and bushings can be removed without actually taking the gear
out of the airplane if one is at all careful. Be sure and slide in an appropriately sized
drift as the bolts are removed and don’t forget to take out the bushings as well as the
bolts. The more often they are removed, the easier they will be to get out.
Happy Skies,
Old Coot Bob
[ARTICLES/20000102 220713 msg00067.tex]

1094
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR

Inner Gear Doors Holes

Tue, 7 Jul 1998 09:41:10

Good Morning Ron Davis,

In a message dated 98-07-07 04:53:46 EDT, you write:

Also, Norm suggested taping over the holes in the inner gear doors to keep
corrosive mud and water out of there, too.

These holes were covered at the factory with good old fashioned grade ”A” cotton and
nitrate dope (later on they used butyrate) just like the fabric on the ailerons.
That is still the method I would use, though I would use a more modern fabric and fill
material.
I know nobody ever sees it except a mechanic doing a proper annual, but it looks a lot
nicer than sticking tape over the holes. I will admit to having used the aluminum tape
myself when I didn’t want to spend the time to do a ”proper” job, but I always felt
guilty when I did!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980707 094110 msg03509.tex]

1095
7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Inspection
Wed, 5 May 1999 10:08:04

In a message dated 5/5/99 7:53:27 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

What Howard said. I swung Debbie’s gear last Saturday at a shop in MRB
– took two of us less than five minutes to jack the plane, then maybe
another five to cycle and check the mechanisms, and five more to lower the
plane, remove the jacks and push it outside. And he didn’t charge me a
farthing.

Good Morning Jeb,

Why was the gear being swung?
What were you trying to check?
If the airplane is being inspected for an annual, at the very least the outboard gear doors
need to be disconnected and I don’t see how the required inspections can be properly
performed without disconnecting the inboard gear doors as well, though I know a lot of
people do it with only the outboards down.
The nose gear doors both need to be released and taped out of the way.
Side loads, both inboard and outboard, should be applied to the nose gear doors (while
they are connected) to see that the nose gear door retract stud hits properly on the nose
gear door retract arm fork.
The clearance between the ”uplock” (it really isn’t an uplock, but rather a stop to
keep the gear from dropping excessively in a high G load situation) and it’s roller is
critical and should be checked. The clearance of various components in relation to the
structure needs to be evaluated in the full up position as well as during the retraction
and extension cycle.
The play in the extension retraction rod ends can only be checked while the gear is in
an ”in transit” position.
The adjustment of those rod ends should be checked at several different positions of
the retraction cycle to ascertain that they do not bind and put a load or twist on the
mechanism anywhere.
The load on the springs when the gear legs are overcenter in the full down condition
must be checked and adjusted if necessary.
The spring load on the nose gear in the up position is also required to be checked.
The main gear must be checked for deflection while the nose gear is ”bumped.” That
checks the condition of the worm gear and it’s thrust washers.

1096
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR

These are only a few of the tests that must be made at every annual and if they aren’t
being done, you are not getting the inspection that was intended by the manufacturer.
Should any rigging adjustment, spring replacement or other required repairs be evident
following a proper gear check, the six hour figure could easily be reasonable!
As has been said by others on this forum, it takes most mechanics at least twenty hours
to perform the inspection that is spelled out in the Beechcraft maintenance manual.
I agree wholeheartedly, that changing mechanics along the way will drastically increase
the hours required to get the job done.
One of the disadvantages of a small one man shop is that he often must be taken away
to attend to other duties. At the bigger shops, daily assignments are often adjusted and
changed as conditions change and that runs the hours up. A job that encounters delay
for any reason will almost always have an inordinate increase in the time it takes to be
completed.
The lowest labor cost is often on the high priority rush job that entails considerable
overtime pay. The job gets done while the mechanics attention is full time on that
project.
The highest labor costs are often on that job that was taken at a reduced hourly rate
just to keep the guys busy when there is nothing else in the shop. The inherent delays
and reeducation required add up to a lot of extra time being billed to the project!
I sense that Eric’s job might well have been on a ”maybe we will do this and maybe we
won’t” schedule. That can be an awfully inefficient way to do things. I apologize, Eric,
if that was not the case.
Still pretty bad, but we are only hearing one side of the story.
Been there, done that, from BOTH sides!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990505 100804 msg04342.tex]

1097
7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Loose Cowl Flaps/Nose Gear Doors

Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:30:50

In a message dated 11/28/00 2:19:27 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

How does this happen, bad rigging? Could this result in the nosegear not
coming down sometime?

Wear and tear, a little misalignment and things bend a little. Unfortunately, Beech has
not allowed much in the way of adjustment. The only thing that I know to do is to get
things back as close to original as possible. The bent shaft is very hard to spot without
disassembly. Even then it takes a good eye. It is best to put it on V block and measure
the displacement. It could jam the nose wheel. That is not what happened to mine, but
it could have been contributory to the nose gear ball release which did cause mine to
jam in the retract position. My cross shafts were both very bent and it was not noticed
by the folks who rebuilt it. I had them removed and rechecked after the rebuild because
the cowl flaps were hard to operate with the gear up. I do consider the shop I used to
be a very good bonanza shop and the mechanics assigned were sharp and conscientious.
This is just a very unusual occurrence and hard to spot. It is imperative that outward
loading be placed on the gear doors during the retract check to simulate the airloads.
The chief of piston maintenance, chief of turbine maintenance and I were all helping
the two men assigned to the job for several hours before we finally located the problem.
Once located it was easy to fix. The secret was the outward loading of the nose gear
doors. Hard to explain without seeing it in action.

Adjusting the position of the pin can vary the pressure put on the cross
shaft when the gear is retracted.
How late would the plane need to be to have this adjustment? Mine’s a
’66 C33A... (No, it’s not convenient to go check it for a day or so.)

I do not have the answer to that. Mine is a late ’ 78 and has the adjustable pin. I know
Beech has a modification kit to add a roller instead of the pin and it can be put on the
early airplanes as a replacement for the fixed pin. I think the adjustable pin was first
used around 73 or 74. I will start looking around, but it may take a while.

Does removing them require jacking the plane?

Not at all. There is nothing involved that connects in any way to the nose gear when
it is extended. The nose gear door retract pin on the lift leg link doesn’t make contact
with the fork to start closing the nose gear doors until quite far along in the retract
cycle.

Is this something with which a shop not intimately familiar with Bonanzas
could handle?

Since the problem is quite rare, most Beech mechanics are not familiar with the problem.

1098
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR

Any competent, open minded, mechanic should be able to do all of the removal and
straightening or replacing of the components.
If the cross shaft is straightened, the nose gear doors must be rerigged and that will
require that the airplane be put on jacks. Experience rerigging the gear will then be
helpful, but it isn’t difficult. Just be sure that you or they have the current manual and
rigging instructions.

remainder snipped
I’m planning to get new tires (*and* tubes...) installed in a week or so dur-
ing some scheduled downtime. This sounds like something worth tackling
at that point.
Thanks!
Jeb

Your Welcome! It will be an interesting and educational experience.

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001128 163050 msg16859.tex]

1099
7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Main Landing Gear Strut Removal and Rebuild?

Wed, 2 May 2001 09:37:51

In a message dated 5/2/01 12:36:08 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

It’s the best way. After all, what’s two more bolts? Do #3. Do it right.

Good Morning Jerry and Bob,

That would be my recommendation as well.
The biggest job required when removing the whole shebang is bleeding the brakes on
reassembly!
The trunnions on which the assembly pivots were supplied with grease fittings on the
early airplanes, but since the early sixties or so, those fittings have not been installed.
The steel bushings and the bolts which hold them in place should be removed, cleaned
and greased every couple of thousand hours anyway. Might as well do that at the same
time as the struts!
Incidentally, be sure to adhere to the proper torque specifications when reinstalling those
bolts and bushings. Too little torque and the mechanism may turn on the bolt instead
of the bushing, too much torque and the steel bushing can be crushed. There are also
some specifications for clearance to be maintained along with spacer washers to aid in
correct alignment. Not difficult, but not obvious either. Use the book!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010502 093751 msg08708.tex]

1100
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR

Main Landing Gear Strut Removal and Rebuild?

Wed, 2 May 2001 11:46:02

In a message dated 5/2/01 10:21:46 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob, no man! That’s the beauty of it! The hydraulic system is not broken
into. You just remove the brake disc/line as an assembly, and set it aside.
No bleeding, etc. Jerry Osborne, PRC, Az, J35, N8323D, IO-470-C. From:
[email protected] The biggest job required when removing the whole
shebang is bleeding the brakes on reassembly!

Good Morning Jerry,

Interesting concept, but how do you remove the fittings that go through the landing
gear components without disconnecting them?
On my V35B, I am sure it would be impossible! The line goes through the trunnion
cross brace.
I don’t have a J35 or the manuals available to me here, but I feel it is easier to just break
the connection where the flexible brake fluid line attaches to the main gear trunnion cross
brace or where the line attaches to the aluminum line in the wheel well than it would be
to remove all of those pipes and fittings from the landing gear assembly. I always take
off the brake unit at the axle as well, just to lighten the assembly.
I suppose it would be possible to break the fittings and cap immediately to get by
without bleeding the brakes, but that seems rather haphazard to me!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010502 114602 msg08721.tex]

1101
7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Nose Gear Door

Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:33:25

In a message dated 2/16/01 12:02:43 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob: 1. I totally agree with that which you provided below. 2. ”That pin
is fixed on all but the latest airplanes and those older ones which have had
the roller kit installed.” – what is this roller kit? 3. One more thing to look
at closely are the ball joints on the cowl flap and nose gear door ”control”
rods condition - mine were totally frozen. Steve

Good Afternoon Steve,

The ball joints should, of course, be checked as should the hinges etc.
I was attempting to explain how the shaft could be bent!
The roller kit was offered by Beech seven or eight years ago. I think it was described in
a Service Bulletin, but am not sure. I don’t know if it is still available or not.
It consists of a new arm with a roller mounted on it to replace the pin that is normally
on the nose gear lift leg.
It is relatively easy to fasten the arm on the nose gear for those later airplanes which
have the adjustable pins. For those airplanes on which the pin is welded, the arm is cut
off about half way up and made into an adjustable unit.
The big problem comes with making the slot in the cross shaft assembly big enough to
accommodate the roller instead of the pin. The kit claims it is possible to grind it out
without removing the cross shaft assembly from the airplane, but I think that would
take an unusually agile person!
I found it a demanding task even with the assembly on the bench. I tried to buy a new
nose gear cross shaft with the large slot already in it, but Beech does not provide that
part. If you want the roller, you need to grind out a stock fork.
The kit was fairly cheap, so I bought it and installed it on my airplane. Next time we
are at the same flyin, take a look at mine.
I DO NOT recommend it being done.
I think the only reason Beech offered the kit was because of the wear that was being
experienced on many of the lift pins
After the research that I have done on the nose gear door mechanism, I am now convinced
that if the alignment can be made what it should be, the pressures will be light enough
that the standard pin won’t wear. If it does wear, there is something wrong with the
alignment.

1102
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR

The problem is that there are no adjustments possible except on the pins of the later
airplanes. I don’t think the problem is with the pin anyway. I think the faulty adjustment
is in the varying amounts that the factory has used for the overcenter condition.
I have some thoughts on how to fix that, but it might be difficult to get it approved.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010216 133325 msg03997.tex]

1103
7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Nose Gear Doors

Wed, 5 May 1999 19:14:24

In a message dated 5/5/99 12:57:00 PM Central Daylight Time, flyboy [email protected]

writes:

I guess what I am asking is if this were your Bonanza and you were doing
the same, what items would you give a good inspection while you had it
apart?
Thanks, Jason

Good Evening Jason,

I think that Arkie or whoever is doing your strut will take care of any problems that are
known to me about the nose gear strut itself, but I think I would take this opportunity
to remove the cowl flap cross shaft and nose gear door retract fork assembly. Check it
for abnormal wear and make sure that the through shaft for the cowl flaps and the nose
gear retract fork assembly are both perfectly straight.
There appears to be a slight variance in the angle that the stop has been welded on to
various nose gear door cross shaft assemblies and if the little dog that hits the fork and
closes the nose gear doors isn’t rigged exactly right, it may go on the top of the fork and
bend the shaft. It will also keep the nose gear from retracting all of the way and put a
substantial strain on the retract mechanism.
To rig the mechanism properly, be sure and pull out (horizontally to the side) on the
nose gear doors while checking to see that the pin fits in the fork. It may work just fine
on the jacks, but ride on the top when the airloads are on the gear doors. Rig it so
that it hits the slot in the fork both with pressure outboard on the doors and pressure
inboard on the doors.
If you have ever experienced difficult to operate cowl flaps, that is likely to be the reason.
I don’t have any idea why there is such a variance in how the stops are welded on. One
would assume that they are all made in the same jig, but I have noted that some appear
to allow the mechanism to go just an eighth of an inch or so over center while others
go a full half inch. (measured at the lift arm) The more the arm goes overcenter, the
more likely it is to be misrigged. When airloads pull the gear doors outboard, the fork
moves down and lowers the position of the slot in the fork. Up comes the lift pin on
the gear leg and if it hits high on the fork, it may go on the top and close the doors
early. The extra strain will then bend the cross shaft and the cowl flap cross shaft which
rides inside the nose gear retract shaft assembly. The problem exists on aircraft of all
vintages, new and old.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob

1104
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR

[ARTICLES/19990505 191424 msg04362.tex]

1105
7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Nose Strut Leaking

Mon, 20 Jul 1998 15:14:26

Good Afternoon Timothy W. Freeze,

In a message dated 98-07-20 14:16:01 EDT, you write:

Looking at the exploded view it appears I can depressurize, losen the torque
link, and change the main O-ring and felt.

I think that would probably work but why do it the hard way?
The nose gear is very easy to remove. Two upper trunnion bolts, one lift leg bolt and, if
your airplane is equipped with nose wheel steering, one bolt attaching that. It shouldn’t
take five minutes and makes the whole job a lot easier. Just put it up on jacks, crack
the gear to release the pressure on the gear leg and have at it.
Happy Skies
Bob Siegfried Old Lazy Mechanic
[ARTICLES/19980720 151426 msg03786.tex]

1106
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.7. MAINT-LDGGEAR

Three Light Gear Position Indicator System

Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:24:31

In a message dated 11/15/99 11:16:03 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Eric, BDS says it’s not available for sale.

Good Afternoon John, Eric and All,

That is a pity, but I would imagine it would be relatively easy project on which to gain a
local approval. The easiest way would be to purchase all of the appropriate components
from Beech and install then in the same manner as the later airplanes, which are so
equipped.
If that price came up excessively high, I would just make copies of the Beech stuff and
submit it as self manufactured! Give complete information on the materials, brackets,
methods, switches, wire sizes, diagrams and all. Write up the Instructions For Continued
Airworthiness and it should be no problem. I would suggest writing it up as a proposal
before any work is done on the aircraft. Once either final or tentative approval is
obtained, go ahead and do the work. I have had excellent success with my local FSDO
on simple projects such as that.
The labor involved in the installation would be no more than that required by the
STC’ed unit and I would estimate ten or twelve hours of additional paperwork for the
local approval. Probably less for those of you have, and are proficient with, cad/cam
programs.
If you have a really gutsy A&P/IA, you might consider listing it as a minor alteration
and the only requirement would be a log book entry by an ”A” licensed mechanic or
other entity authorized to return the aircraft to service following a minor alteration.
I would go for the local approval, but there may be others who would buy the minor
alteration approach. It is certainly, at least, debatable!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991115 132431 msg10595.tex]

1107
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

7.8 MAINT-MISC

1108
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Air Skeg/restoring the S-35

Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:59:26

Good Afternoon John,

In a message dated 98-08-20 13:43:05 EDT, you write:

The project aircraft came with a D’Shannon skeg on it but the paperwork
got lost along the way. Can anyone help me out with a copy of the STC?

Take it off and throw it away! It is in the way when tieing down the airplane. It impedes
proper inspection of the tail and it adds weight where you don’t need it.
The instructions say that you must keep your feet on the rudder pedals to gain maximum
effectiveness of the skeg.
If you place your feet on the rudder pedals and resist the temptation to use aileron
unnecessarily, your airplane will have less wiggle than any with the skeg installed. If
you really want something that will help with the Beech wiggle, save your money until
you can afford an electronic yaw damper. It does not do as good a job as a hard working
and attentive human pilot, but it is right there all of the time.
Lose the Skeg!!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980820 145926 msg04606.tex]

1109
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Annual Duration
Thu, 2 Oct 1997 18:31:33

Hi Curt,
Boy that does sound bad!! Obviously we really can’t judge what is happening on your
airplane without hearing the other side.
I can tell you though, about what it takes to get my airplane annualed.
It usually takes about a day to get it cleaned up and opened up. That includes the time
spent noting small discrepancies that need to be looked at and cleaning all of the areas
that are not accessible until the covers are pulled.
It generally takes another day to get things greased, oiled and such. If things go well,
my inspection and the the retraction test etc. will be done and the airplane ready for
the IA by the end of the second day.
The third day I will pick up any small items left and the IA will do his thing. Paper
work may run the third day into a long one but that is about a normal shot.
Three good long days provided that there are no other things to do besides a good
inspection of a clean and well maintained airplane. Quite often I will have a project
which should be accomplished at the same time and that would necessitate a longer time
in the shop.
I guess it would be a good idea to ascertain before you allow someone to open up your
airplane if they will have the manpower to stay on the job until it is finished. If something
is found that will require a wait for parts or such, well those things happen.
It has been my experience that a job that has men working on it sporadically ends up
eating up a LOT more shop time than one on which people work steadily till it is done.
Talk to them and get it straightened out as soon as possible.
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19971002 183133 msg01907.tex]

1110
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Annual Inspection
Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:40:28

Good Evening Eric Poole,

In a message dated 98-03-24 17:21:14 EST, you write:

On average, what do you think an annual on a 38-year-old Bonanza should

cost, with no major problems found?

I would think that an inspection with no problems found should entail approximately 20
hours of labor including cleaning, lubricating, adjusting things and doing the required
paperwork, AD searches etc. Any work to be performed such as repairs or replacements
would be extra.
The going labor rate in our area is about 55 dollars per hour so the $1500 doesn’t sound
too bad. In a low labor area I understand some shop rates are as low as 30 to 35 bucks
per hour and that would make a considerable difference.
When I hear about 3 or 4 hundred dollar annuals I just can’t believe the airplane is
being properly inspected. There are certain things that must be done and it takes a fair
amount of time to perform those functions. I don’t see how it could be done in less than
twenty hours.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980324 174028 msg01335.tex]

1111
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Annual Inspections
Tue, 24 Mar 1998 19:02:27

Good Evening Eric,

In a message dated 98-03-24 18:41:18 EST, you write:

Almost two weeks. But that’s not my fault. They kept pulling themselves
off of my airplane to work on ”more important” stuff, which was OK by
me up to a point (and I told them that anything up to a couple of weeks
would probably be OK).

Even the finest and most conscientious cost conscious shop will find the cost creeping
up on an airplane that is allowed to sit. Unfortunate but true. It is generally best to
have a tight schedule to get the airplane out.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980324 190227 msg01343.tex]

1112
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Annual Inspections
Wed, 25 Mar 1998 11:41:58

Good Morning Bob Belovich,

In a message dated 98-03-25 10:57:37 EST, you write:

Could you publish your ”self-annual checklist.

There is a checklist in the maintenance manual for your airplane. Even if you do not
intend to do any of your own maintenance, you should invest in the manual with revision
service for your airplane, it’s engine, propeller and any of it’s other accessories. many
mechanics do not keep up to date copies of these required documents and as an owner
you should see that they are available before any maintenance is performed. That IS
required by the regulations!
Total cost should be a couple of hundred bucks to start with and revision service about
a hundred per year. If there are others of a like mind with aircraft covered by the same
manuals, they can easily be shared.
I share my manuals, AD service and other such stuff with several other mechanics and
pilots. Works great and we are all legal!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980325 114158 msg01380.tex]

1113
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Brackett Air Filter

Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:31:33

In a message dated 1/17/00 7:03:13 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob, that would be interesting to check. However, a Beech filter would

probably not fit in the Brackett housing, right? This is a IO-470-C.

Good Evening Jerry,

No, the Beech unit won’t fit in the Brackett housing, but most of the Brackett housings
fit in the Beech mountings. I do believe some of them require a minor modification
to be made to the airplane before the Brackett unit goes on, but as I recall, on most
airplanes all that is required is to remove the Brackett, reinstall a Beech filter and file a
337 stating that the Brackett has been removed.
I agree that the paper work is stupid, but the FEDs claim that if you need a 337 to put
it on, you need a 337 to take it off! You aren’t using the 337 to approve the installation
of the Beech filter, it is in the op specs for the airplane. The 337 is to show that the
Brackett was removed.
The biggest disadvantage is the cost of the Beech filter. I don’t have it right here but
as I recall it is about ten times the price of the Brackett! I believe the Brackett filters a
little better as well.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000117 213133 msg00972.tex]

1114
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Carpet Installation
Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:11:16

Hi JIm,
The newer airplanes have Velcro. Mine is 19 years old, has over 2000 hours use and the
carpets are removed at least twice a year and sometimes more often. The Velcro is still
serving just fine.
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970924 091116 msg01809.tex]

1115
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Cowl Flap Rigging

Sat, 31 Mar 2001 10:21:05

In a message dated 3/31/01 9:10:17 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Recently, the cowl flaps on my 36 have started creeping open on their own
while straight & level. All of the linkage appears to be OK. Any tips?
Rick, E-3

Good Morning Rick,

The rigging has probably slipped.
Get the maintenance manual and follow the rigging instructions.
Basically, they are supposed to be rigged so that the bell crank is slightly over center in
relation to the cowl flap door actuating rods. The most likely place for yours to have
slipped is at the phenolic block on the firewall.
However, I really urge you to read the factory maintenance manual before you attempt
any adjustments.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010331 102105 msg06955.tex]

1116
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Cowl Flaps Hang

Wed, 5 May 1999 22:33:38

In a message dated 5/5/99 8:43:01 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

My cowl flaps are difficult to operate. Steve K-35 N12711

Good Evening Steve,

First, remove the cross-shaft assembly and check that both elements are straight. It is
very hard to discern the bend with the unit installed.
Then, if you can round up the manpower, put the airplane on jacks and get two of your
assistants to sit under the wing and push up on the main landing gear while you have
another assistant crank it up. The gear will not be hurt provided that those two main
gear pusher-uppers are doing their job!
Have another helper hold the right hand (or left or both!) nose gear door(s) out so
that the lift arm fork is at it’s lowest position. Then check to see that the lift pin fits
smoothly into the fork. You can also look at the cowl flap fork and see if it shows signs
of having been rubbed on the top of the fork.
The problem is often intermittent. Might only ride up on top one time out of fifty or so.
Rig the pin so that it rides on the top of the fork slot with the gear doors held out and
the bottom of the slot with the gear doors held inboard.
Good luck and:
Happy Skies,
Bob
PS If you are short of helpers, the gear can be ”bumped up” electrically as described
in the maintenance manual. If you try to crank it up by the hand crank you may over
stress and break off the ears into which the ”screw diver blade” fitting on the hand
crank rides. That is the weak point of the system. Pushing up on the mains unloads
the system so that it won’t be overstressed.
[ARTICLES/19990505 223338 msg04367.tex]

1117
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Cowl Flaps Hanging up

Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:24:23

In a message dated 11/28/00 12:08:54 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I’m interested in learning more about this procedure and what it will and
will not remedy. Specifically, my cowl flaps are relatively easy to open
and close when the gear is extended. When the gear is retracted in flight,
however, the cowl flaps are easy to close, but rarely can they be opened,
even partially, once they are fully closed.
Is it your impression that this disassembly, cleaning, lube and re-assembly
will alleviate this stiffness in them when the gear is up?

Good Afternoon Jeb,

If your cowl flaps are hard to operate when the gear is up, there is definitely something
wrong.
You may be even be one of those very few unlucky souls whose nose gear retract pin
slides over the top of the fork and not into the mouth when the gear is retracted. That
doesn’t occur very often, but when it does, it puts a tremendous pressure on the cowl
flap cross shaft.
Why the cowl flap cross shaft?
Because, when Beech designed the Bonanza one of the prime criteria was to make it
as light as possible. To this end, a major effort was placed to have one component do
many jobs. That is why they had the combination Wobble Pump, Fuel Selector Valve
and Fuel Filter assembly. One unit doing multiple jobs.
The cowl flap shaft runs across the wheel well and provides a shaft on which the nose
gear door retract cross shaft can ride. Double duty engineering at it’s best!
When the nose gear is being retracted, the little pin on the lift leg link eventually slides
into the fork on the cross shaft. That rotates and pulls up the doors.
On all of the early airplanes, there is no adjustment for the position of the pin. The
later airplanes, have the pin adjustable so that it can be made to fit into the fork better.
Adjusting the position of the pin can vary the pressure put on the cross shaft when the
gear is retracted.
It is not at all unusual to find both of the cross shafts bent. When they are removed,
they should be placed in V blocks and checked for straightness. Due to the various
weldments that are on the shafts, a little misalignment is not always visible to a casual
inspection.
If the shafts are bent, they should be straightened or replaced, but that isn’t the end of
the job. The next thing is to find out why they bent. That is more difficult to do and

1118
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

there is little or no adjustment available to the erstwhile mechanic.

When the mechanism is being checked for proper operation, a pressure should be applied
against the nose gear doors to the outside, or open, direction. That is the way the
airloads act on the doors. They are blown out, not in. The mechanism may work just
fine on the jacks when there are no airloads, but the pin can ride up over the top of the
fork when the air loads are applied. That will result in a bent cross shaft and further
deterioration of the mechanism.
It is easy to take apart. I prefer to release the nose gear door lift rods by taking them
off at the hinge and/or at the lift arms on the cross shaft. That does not disturb the
length and does not require a disassembly of the ball joint. If the balls are dirty and
need cleaning anyway, there is nothing wrong with doing it Steve’s way. The new ones
cannot be disassembled in that manner and must be done either the way I described or
by unscrewing them from the rods. If the number of turns is carefully recorded, they
may be reinstalled without requiring rerigging, but they usually need a little tuning up
every year anyway.
One common point of wear is on the right side where the bell crank is fastened to the
cross shaft. If that is allowed to become loose, it will wear rapidly. It can be shimmed
to provide a tight fit and reduce the wear.
The main thing, though, is to check both shafts for straightness!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001128 142423 msg16849.tex]

1119
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Drag testing, was Assist step

Tue, 6 Jan 1998 12:58:20

Tom Turner
In a message dated 98-01-06 10:03:24 EST, you write:

the maximum airspeed range does vary from plane to plane. When I was
selling the things we claimed ”at least” 195 KTAS; I never delivered a
turbo’d Bonanza that did less than 197KTAS with just me, half tanks and
at 75% power, 20,000 feet, and 100F rich of peak (best power).

Hi Tom,
When you were doing your speed tests, did you have a chance to calibrate your airspeed
indicators? I agree that there is ten mph or more difference in brand new airplanes
depending on the rigging, but I have also found ten mph difference in indicated speed
when flying alongside other airplanes.
Many years ago I had the opportunity to do some flight tests using an FAA calibrated
trailing bomb unit to calibrate our airspeed indicator but even that left difficult to
analyze problems.
Getting a good calibrated airspeed is only part of the problem. Finding a stable air
mass with no lifting or settling is extremely difficult.
I rather feel that the best way to really tell what a true airspeed is on any airplane is
to make a series of upwind/downwind runs with a GPS unit over a period of several
weeks and in lots of different weather conditions. Even then you are still only obtain-
ing an average. Comparison tests against another aircraft are by far the easiest and
fastest way to determine the effect of any small change to rigging or other aerodynamic
improvements.
As an aside, one of the methods that Steve Wittman used to evaluate drag on his wings
was to make the changes on only one side at a time and then go fly the airplane to see if
he could detect the change by rudder trim change or change in stalling characteristics.
Direct comparison wind tunnel!!
It ain’t easy.
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980106 125820 msg00134.tex]

1120
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Dzus Fastener Tool

Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:07:33

In a message dated 10/31/99 7:33:14 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I can think of many other items that I could waste my money on! My $5.00
gas drain with a flat head screwdriver attachment works pretty good for
me..

No doubt that such a device will work, probably for a long time too!
However, any fastener will last longer if the device used to operate it fits the receptacle
into which it inserted as tightly as possible. That is true for Phillips, Reed and Prince,
Camlock, Torx, regular slotted screws and Dzus fasteners.
The design of the Dzus is for something with parallel faces and a curved blade end.
It is expected that the tool will be appropriately heat treated for wear resistance and
strength. Anything else will wear the fitting out faster than the proper tool.
You could undoubtedly make one yourself. As I said earlier, we made our own in aircraft
mechanics school. Most of ours didn’t last too long as we didn’t do that great of a job
at heat treating.
As always, it depends on what you want and what you are willing to pay, either in
dollars or effort.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991031 230733 msg09965.tex]

1121
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Elevator Trim Indicator Dial Illumination

Wed, 15 Sep 1999 10:49:17

In a message dated 9/15/99 9:18:08 AM Central Daylight Time, beech [email protected]

writes:

Stephen [email protected] wrote:

Anyway, my question is in regards to the Elevator Trim indicator dial in
a 1970 V35B. Does anyone know if that indicator dial is supposed to be
lighted?
FWIW mine is illuminated. (V35)

Good Morning Stephen,

Welcome to Howard Page’s Bonanza Forum! I hope you find it as helpful and interesting
as have I.
Your trim indicator does have a bulb to provide backlighting, at least it did have when
it left the factory!
It is located so as to shine on the trim dial from the front so as to shine through the
dial. The bulb base is mounted on a small bracket just to the left of indicator. If there
has been nothing mounted to the left of the control column mount and below the panel
on that side, it is not too difficult for a young agile person to access. For me, it takes a
bit of effort!
If the intensity is not what you think it should be, I would check that the dial is clean
on both the inside, where the light shines, and on the outside, where we look at it.
The placement of the bulb and bracket is such that someone working behind the panel
could easily bend it out of position if something less than TLC is used while working
there, so the placement of the bulb should be checked as well. If my memory serves
correctly, there is a light guide that is supposed to be slipped over the bulb, should that
be missing, it might make the light less efficient. Finally, the bulb should be checked to
see that it is of the proper rating.
Any help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990915 104917 msg08458.tex]

1122
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Emergency Static Vent

Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:49:07

In a message dated 2/6/01 8:22:38 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I had one incident where the static system became blocked while flying
IMC in a friend’s 58 Baron around Pueblo, Colorado. I later found out the
plane was washed by the owner’s son the day before. When I detected the
problem, I opened the emergency static vent on the side panel by my knee
and I got my altimeter back. I suspect the ports froze because we didn’t
see any water in the drain lines after I landed. As part of pre-flight, I now
look carefully at the static port buttons...........wpl

Good Morning Patrick,

I guess that is why Beech offers the heated static vent as an option!
That little emergency static vent did it’s job for you, didn’t it?
I wonder if those of our group who are making the valiant effort to gain easy access
to their static system drain might not be well served by assuring that their airplane is
equipped with the emergency static vent?
I don’t remember when Beech started installing it and am not sure whether it was a
standard or an optional item, but it is certainly a good idea to have one.
I also don’t have any idea of what the cost is for the one that Beech uses, but I have seen
some airplanes where the folks had installed a stock Curtiss drain valve in the static
line for that purpose. I suppose some might consider that a major alteration, due to the
fact that it is in a rather primary flight reference system, but I would buy it as a minor
alteration and be happy with a log book entry by someone with at least an Airframe
mechanics certificate.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010206 094907 msg02917.tex]

1123
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Failed Alternators/Generators Away From Home

Wed, 20 Jan 1999 01:23:36

In a message dated 1/19/99 9:59:48 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Is it actually legal to do that

f errytheairplane

? Seems that an alternator is a fairly critical piece of equipment ... is it

legal to take off with a known inoperative alternator?

If you want to do it and can find an A&P who will agree that it can be done safely, get
a ferry permit, but be sure and let your insurance company know you are going to do
so. I have been told that some insurance is no good if you operate on a ferry permit
without their approval.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990120 012336 msg00849.tex]

1124
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Fixed Step
Fri, 21 Jul 2000 16:20:46

In a message dated 7/21/00 1:10:44 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Would you expect the same gain if you removed a fixed step from a later
model?

Good Afternoon Joe,

No, I wouldn’t. The later model fixed steps have the supporting tube lined up with the
thin edge toward the airstream and they are slightly shorter. The P model and some of
the Debonairs had a round tube to support the step. The retractable one uses a fairly
wide streamlined tubing with the fat, flat surface facing the airstream. Very high drag.
I would imagine that one, maybe at the outside, two knots, could be saved by eliminating
the step altogether on an S model or later, but such small amounts are very difficult to
verify. I think the round one from the P would be higher drag than the newer ones, but
have no data to prove it.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000721 162046 msg11203.tex]

1125
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Flap Rigging
Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:31:46

Hi Bill Fleming,
The question – ” How did you know the flaps needed rigging?” is an interesting one.
For starters, that is one of the most common reasons for one model 33, 35 or 36 to be
slower than another similar vintage, weight and condition airframe.
The Beech rigging procedure states that, unlike most other airplanes, bubble protracters
are NOT to be used for checking the rigging of those airplanes. You will find that most
”speed demons” just rig the flaps as high as possible without bending anything.
The early airplanes had a U shaped rubber bumper that fit in the flap track to take
out the rattle when the flaps were adjusted to the factory specified settings. (More on
these later) When I had early airplanes, I took out that bumper which was about 3/16”
thick and replaced it with old fashioned rubber electricians tape which may not even be
available any more, but was about 1/16” thick thereby allowing me to bring my flaps
up a little higher. I then rigged the ailerons up to line up with the flaps.
Very unscientific but I always thought I was picking up 3 or 4 mph. It is difficult to tell
though without sophisticated test equipment and procedures.
The newer airplanes have little toilet seat style bumpers out near the outboard section
of the flap mounted on the structure just forward of the flap.
The flaps are first adjusted to the desired setting and then the adjustable bumpers are
screwed out far enough to hit the flap when retracted and eliminate rattle They are
NOT designed as stops. They are there strictly to stop the rattling.and vibration.
Misadjusted flaps can start to tear up structure in the wing so caution should be used
when messing around here.
Now the BIG problem.
I recently decided that I would like to obtain the eguipment necessary to rig the Beech
33, 35 and 36 line as per factory directions.
I took the manual out and checked on what equipment they felt was required to do
the job. After writing down all of the part numbers of the special equipment and tools
required, I called RAPID (Raytheons parts division) and obtained the prices. The
required travel boards and jigging devices that are necessary range in price from the
cheapest at about $700.00 to the priciest (a very small one used to rig the trim tabs) at
over $5000.00.
The stuff for my airplane (not enough to cover the whole fleet) was over $30,000.00.
Now I know why most shops just line things up by eyeball and see how she flys!!

1126
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

I gave up on the idea of purchasing the equipment from Raytheon and am currently
looking into other avenues of obtaining the required stuff!
If anybody has some good ideas, let me know.
I have seen travel boards made from 3/4” plywood.. I don’t know if those were factory
ones or not. If a layout or template could be obtained that might be an answer.
Don’t know if this answers any questions but I just thought I would put it out for
comment.
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19971006 133146 msg01964.tex]

1127
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Fuel Sump Winged Fastener

Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:23:35

To Glenn and all,

In a message dated 97-11-19 05:32:38 EST, you write:

Performance Aero, Inc. advertises a ”Bonanza Fuel Sump Door Winged

Stud” for $11.00. Look at their ad on page 4952L in the October 1997 ABS
Magazine.

In many cases, I find small standard parts such as this to be relatively low priced at
RAPID (the parts division of Raytheon), so I checked and this is what I found:
Part Number - WL98293-1-060 —– Stud $11.40 each Part Number - 99785-2 ————
——Cross Pin .80 (but with minimum order of 25)
I guess that means if you are paying list, it is still rather expensive for a small part.
Performance Aero has done the job of finding the source so it seems they deserve the
profit!
If anyone wants to check prices directly with RAPID, their number is 1-800-428-3234.
You will need a Part Number, all you get is a person at a computer terminal, very
pleasent and helpful, BUT! No product knowledge.
As always,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19971119 102335 msg02433.tex]

1128
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Getting Your A&P

Mon, 22 Nov 1999 00:10:36

In a message dated 11/21/99 10:49:40 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

As I expected, the experience requirement looks like a killer for any of us

weekend mechanics.

Well Tom, it has been done! The FAA will generally accept a log book that shows the
work performed and who supervised it. Thirty months of four weeks each at forty hours
per week is 4800 hours. That is a lot of time! Remember though, that an apprentice
mechanic is washing airplanes, sweeping out the hangar and cleaning parts for a lot of
those hours. As he/she gains experience, time will be spent perusing catalogs and parts
books to order things to be used in maintenance procedures. Later on, time will be spent
seeing that the paperwork is all in order and ADs complied with. All of the time is not
spend welding, riveting, gluing wing spars or bending wrenches! Doesn’t that sound a
lot like things that all of we owners do all of the time? Keep track of everything you do,
find a friendly A&P you is willing to be your mentor/instructor and get started!
Another possibility is to attend a local college or other educational facility that provides
a night school style of program. Some of those have programs approved where both
licenses can be earned in as little as eighteen months or even less!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991122 001036 msg10938.tex]

1129
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Go Fast Stuff
Thu, 9 Jul 1998 11:15:33

Good Morning John,

In a message dated 98-07-08 17:45:54 EDT, you write:

Can you recommend some reading that would perhaps give me a few more
knots on mine?

I wish I could, but I am not familiar with anything specifically referencing speed mods.
Over the years both the ABS magazine and the EAA publications have addressed specific
drag reduction problems and it would probably be advantageous to look through the
ABS CD and back issues of the EAA newsletters to see what might be found.
My personal recollections are a combination of hearsay, old wives tales, common knowl-
edge (as perceived by me), personal prejudices and interpretations of statements made
by others.
Along that vein, it is my perception that mods done by Alan Peterson (BDS) are strictly
”cut and try” with retention of what does best. Roy LoPresti attacks problems from
the vantage point of a well trained and experienced aeronautical design engineer.
It seems to me that Mike Smith is a little closer to the Alan Peterson mode but he used
”book learning” to a little greater advantage than does Alan. I wish Roy LoPresti would
go to work on our favorite machine.
The original Bonanza design was a text book study of how to use the knowledge of the
day to reduce drag and gain maximum performance from a small engine.
Frontal area was reduced by eliminating every external protuberance possible and placing
the function within the structure. All of the landing gear retracts completely and even
the loop navigation antenna was placed within the structure. The door handles are flush
as are the hinges. The entrance step retracted, and so forth.
Skin drag was to be reduced by using electric spot welding to eliminate the rivets. When
that didn’t work out too well, they were to be replaced with flush rivets.
The weight of the structure and it’s accessories was given extreme attention. The com-
bination fuel valve and wobble pump assembly is one example of ingenious weight saving
design.
The combination of all this detail engineering was a very light weight, low drag machine.
Over the years ”tons” of unnecessary weight have been added to achieve commonality
of parts for increased manufacturing efficiency.
Protruding head rivets have replaced flush ones in many places where a little design
effort would have allowed the retention of flush fastening devices.

1130
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

So what can you do to make it go faster?

The principal drag producing device on the airplane is the wing and it is difficult to
eliminate that.
The weight of the structure is difficult to address, but weight in general is one area over
which we have some control. Keep it light.
It also goes fastest with an aft C.G. but that can lead to controlability issues. Be sure
it is within approved limits.
Drag reduction that we can control appears to be along the lines of what Mike Smith
has done.
Make sure that the airplane is in proper rig.
That is a lot easier said than done and is an area in which Mike Smith probably has the
most expertise in the world. Rigging the wing angle of incidence is not easy but is very
important. Mike always said it is a matter of adjusting and flying till you get it right.
Don’t forget rigging of the ruddervators.
Once the airplane is rigged to perfection, install gap seals
Make sure that all of the doors and windows close tightly and that all of the seals are
doing their job. Every air leak is a little protuberance creating drag.
Eliminate the air intake on the top of the fuselage. Mike put an NACA type inlet in the
left side aft inspection plate. I have no idea if it works or not but it looks like it would
reduce the drag!
No antennas or lights on the top of the fuselage.
That one would be hard for me to live with, but if you want the least drag it is the way
to go!
Mike put the ADF antenna AND the comm antenna in the tailcone on some airplanes.
I don’t see how that can work properly but have talked to people who had that arrange-
ment and said it seems to work!
He mounted the ELT antenna inside the airplane near the side windows. Does it work?
I would hope no one ever finds out.
I am sure there are many other aspects we could discuss, but my wife is bugging me to
get off the computer and go mow the lawn. Such is life!
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980709 111533 msg03557.tex]

1131
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Grimes Beacon
Fri, 12 Mar 1999 00:13:41

In a message dated 3/11/99 5:56:44 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Thanks Cy; I really need to get out to the hangar and measure it, but from
memory it probably is about 3.5” or bigger. I couldn’t find anything about
replacements in the Spruce catalog, so I’ll maybe check the junkyards. Al

Good Evening Al,

Have you tried Leatherwood at Paso Robles?
He has purchased most of the loose stock of Grimes beacons from around the country.
If that is what you have, there is a good possibility he has the parts.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990312 001341 msg02788.tex]

1132
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Hartzell AD Problems
Sun, 1 Nov 1998 10:33:30

Good Morning John Small,

In a message dated 11/1/98 8:53:55 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

I suppose my question/comment has been discussed previously to some

extent. I’m having a bit of a problem coming to terms with expensive
AD’s that amount to faulty engineering on the part of the manufacturer.
It is one thing to pay top dollar for parts. Is it too much to also expect
that they are air worthy too? Must we pay for the manufacturers’ lack of
expertise? After all it’s not like we get the parts at a bargain price to begin
with.

This is a tough one. I tend to feel that our friends who are manufacturing the parts con-
tained in the assembly we use for aerial transportation are as competent and responsible
as any human beings on the planet Earth.
Faulty engineering is a rather broad and unfair indictment of the industry. I am not
following the Hartzell troubles closely, but am confident that all of their designs were at
the state of the art when developed.
A very high percentage of the difficulties we have with our flying machines is caused by
we operators not following the dictates of the maintenance and operational parameters
established by the manufacturer.
But even with the best state of the art engineering and the most intense application of
diligence in maintenance and operation of the machines, problems are bound to occur.
The AD system is the response we have to get the word to the operators of the equipment.
Many times the initial corrective action is serious overkill and the problems are mitigated
when other minds start to work on the situation. We are still a group of humans and
nothing is perfect.
With all of the difficulty, I think that you will find that the accidents due to failure of
equipment are few and becoming fewer. The system does work!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981101 103330 msg06551.tex]

1133
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Magnesium Ruddervators
Tue, 18 Apr 2000 14:18:34

In a message dated 4/18/00 12:58:01 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Would I then decide, no, I’d rather spend $15,000 on plastic parts so some
owner 25 years into the future won’t have this problem? I think not. I
would just replace with Magnesium.

Good Afternoon Mike,

I believe that shows that there are still differences of opinion as to how we evaluate
purchases for our aircraft.
You are assuming that the new ones from Raytheon are suitable for your use. I, on the
other hand, feel that surfaces that met the specifications delineated would be superior
to the Raytheon product and less likely to encounter the difficulties of old age that have
afflicted the 35, A35, B35 and 35R aircraft. To me, even at my advanced age, that is
the better value.
You spend your money and you take your choice.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000418 141834 msg06641.tex]

1134
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Magneto Timing Buzz Box/Down Lock Tension Measuring Device

Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:55:56

In a message dated 8/23/99 8:54:10 AM Central Daylight Time, flyboy [email protected]

writes:

can anyone please recommend a good magneto timing indicator?

Good Morning Jason,

Are you referring to the timing light or a method of determining the engine rotation
relative to top dead center?
I like the little buzz box devices to tell me when the points open and on the 520 and
550 you can use the timing mark on the generator drive gear to find 22 degrees before
top dead center. If you want to check that mark’s accuracy or if you have an engine
that needs a timing indicator, I like to use a degree disk on the prop combined with a
mechanical stop in the plug hole to locate top dead center.
I recently purchased a new buzz box, timing indicator and sparkplug pin for locating
top dead center from Eastern Technology Corporation. They seem well made and were
relatively economical. I am sure there are many others available and I did not research
the market before I bought mine. They were just advertised in Trade A Plane and
convenient to buy.
I formerly used a Time Rite. They are OK, but I like the timing disc better.

Also, where can I purchase a tension meter for checking down-lock tension
on the landing gear?

Raytheon has them for sale and you are in luck!

When ABS worked hard a couple of years ago to get some of the prices reduced on Beech
parts, the tension measuring device was one of those devices which enjoyed a massive
price cut.
The price was reduced some 45%! They lowered it from around $4500 to about $2500.
Such a deal!
The device consists of a quality fish scale that can measure from both ends, pull or push.
Beech added a nice brass handle to one end and a small hard rubber knob to the push
end. That added $4200 bucks to the tool provided they paid full list for the scale as I
did.
I purchased the same scale from a high priced supply house and it was less than $300,
still way over priced, but at least affordable. I would imagine cheaper ones are available
and the only criteria would be that you should have some method of calibrating or
checking the accuracy of any scale you use.
Have fun!

1135
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990823 115556 msg07182.tex]

1136
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Main Gear Strut Rebuilding

Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:15:32

In a message dated 11/10/99 11:56:07 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Carmine Pecoraro wrote:

Replace the ”O” rings. Cheers Carmine Pecoraro
I have a similar problem. My AI tells me you have to take the gear off the
Bonanza to rebuild. I’m gonna wait til I get my new engine paid for. G
Barry

Good Morning Barry,

I have seen the struts rebuilt in place but consider it stupid and false economy to do so!
None of the three are hard to pull. They merely need to be disconnected at the lift leg,
appropriate wiring and plumbing disconnected and the hinge bolts/bushings removed.
If the hinge bolts or bushings are hard to get out, that means they need lubrication
anyway!
Pulling all three struts should not take over an hour even for the most fastidious and
careful mechanic.
Once removed, the rebuild is much easier than with the struts in place.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991110 131532 msg10439.tex]

1137
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Measuring Airspeed
Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:15:49

To John Whitehead,
It appears that I am still not getting all of the mail on the circuit. I have not yet received
your mail on the airspeed question but I did receive the answer to your message which
recommended the four way run!
That certainly is a good method. I usually just pick a heading that is into the wind
and don’t worry about the visual ground track. I adjust the heading ( I use the flux
gate compass and have checked it’s accuracy) until it and the ground track shown on
my GPS are the same. Then make a series of runs upwind and downwind and average
the ground speeds.
I have found that in high wind conditions the heading and wind speeds are variable
enough that good consistency is hard to find. It seems to work best in very light winds
and good stable air. If I can’t get repeatable results on at least three or four runs I
disregard the results and then try again another day. I make sure that the airplane has
stabilized at the same indicated airspeed both ways and make the runs at least three
minutes long before making the one-eighty.
When I first started doing this I had about a five knot error in my indicator. I took it
to the instrument shop and had it recalibrated (He did find that it was about four knots
off) I still find that I have a couple of knots error at both high and low indicated speeds
and I believe that is an installation error in my airplane. (The static and pitot systems
are OK).
It may not be a particularly fast airplane but I still like it!
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970724 101549 msg01355.tex]

1138
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Nose Weight
Fri, 28 Aug 1998 02:23:23

Good Morning George Vasick

In a message dated 98-08-27 19:39:37 EDT, you write:

I already have a new Hartzell 3 blade, but I don’t know the weight of the
prop itself. We reweighed the plane after the new prop and IO-550 upgrade.
I guess I could always add a turbo. :-)

There have been local approvals for weights added on the stringers just aft of the plus
ten bulkhead.
Norm Colvin recommended putting shot bags of lead shot in the nose cowl alongside
the weight installed on all of the non-stretched airplanes built from 1964 on.
He felt it did not need paper work but only a pilot notation on the weight and balance
computations. I believe he considered it as discretionary located baggage!
While I normally feel Norm was pretty accurate with his recommendations, I do have a
small problem with this particular procedure and would recommend a 337 local approval
on solid weights installed securely as far forward as practical.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980828 022323 msg04913.tex]

1139
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Oil Filter Torque

Wed, 5 May 1999 00:10:00

In a message dated 5/4/99 10:39:26 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Oh yes. Sure of that. Two different Craftsman wrenches.

Good Evening John,

I think I agree with those that counsel you to put the filter on finger tight and then turn
it down 3/4 of a turn.
Torque wrenches all have great differences and a wide scatter. That is why critical bolts
are often torqued by measuring the bolt elongation. It is much more accurate than any
torque wrench.
Turning the filter down 3/4 of a turn is rather like stretching the bolt, probably more
accurate than torqueing.
I think I would take the one that you turned down two turns off of the engine as soon
as possible and I would throw it away and start out with a new one.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990505 001000 msg04333.tex]

1140
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Oil Filter Torque

Wed, 5 May 1999 23:35:42

In a message dated 5/5/99 10:21:37 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

It’s not leaking ... if too tight I would expect it to deform the gasket
resulting in a leak, right?

Good Evening John,

No, over tightening will make it very hard to remove. The longer it is on, the harder
it will be to get off. The use of heat as was advised earlier will likely help though I
have never tried it. I still prefer the 3/4 turn method. Been using it forever and have
never had a leak problem or undue difficulty with removal. I don’t know where your
A&P obtained the information concerning using more turns, but nothing that I have
says anything other than the 3/4 turn technique.
When I was using the Ultimate filter, I torqued it with a very high quality recently
calibrated torque wrench and found that it hit the proper torque at almost exactly
the 3/4 turn position. The gasket seemed very similar to those used on the standard
Champion filter.
Do what you think best, but I bet the thing will be a bear to get off at the next oil
change!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990505 233542 msg04376.tex]

1141
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Overweight Bonanza?
Mon, 31 Aug 1998 00:47:05

Good Evening Joe,

In a message dated 8/30/98 11:06:22 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

I’ve been going over the old W&B sheets that I did– it was weighed just
before I bought it – trying to find the extra weight. There are a few entries
with ’no change’ or ’negligible change’ but nothing that would add up to
the 109#.

It can be very difficult to reconcile actual weights with the factory weight. You may well
find that the original weight figures for your airplane are calculated not actual weights.
Look at the original papers and see what it says. I have also found incorrect weights for
components used by Beech. I suppose there is always that conscious or unconcious effort
to keep the numbers as favorable as possible. I have also found factory arms that were
not correct. The components were usually farther aft than shown in the paperwork.

Is it reasonable that the windshield and panel mod added that much?
Reweighing was the plan from the start of the project so I didnt weigh the
parts going in or out. My feeling was that I took out more than I put
in, there where a lot of parts in the old panel and the new one was much
simpler.

I am not up to speed on the weight of the thicker windows but I have a recollection that
there is some fifteen pounds additional for a 3/8s over a 1/4 and another fifteen pounds
for a 1/2 inch windshield. Seems that it would be easy to add thirty or more pounds
with thicker windows.
I have weighed the old panel components and the new when replacing the early style
with a newer floating unit and it was about a draw.
Your numbers for the engine seem a little high. They can be checked quite easily if you
will look in the aircraft specs for your engine and the one you replaced. I have found
there is usually a bigger difference in the weights of the accessories than the engines.
Have you included all of the wiring and such for new equipment?

I was present when the plane was weighed and the system the guy used
looked pretty good, digital scales, one for each wheel. Even added the
3 numbers for a total. Didnt figure a balance though, did that with a
calculator.
The plane was weighed with full fuel and that could be a source of error...
When I get flying I’ll empty the tanks and see how much they hold, that
might help – or hurt!

1142
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

I have never found a Bonanza tank that would not hold more fuel than the tank was
placarded for. The forty gallon tanks without the anti slosh stuff will usually hold about
41 or 41 and 1/4 gallons. If they have the antislosh junk the capacity is usually 1/3 to
1/2 gallon less.
Similar numbers are true for the 20 or 25 gallon tanks.
There can be some problem with fuel dispensing equipment. It depends on how recently
the weights and measure people have checked the equipment. Four percent errors are
not uncommon.
If you want to get real technical, you can check on the specific gravity of the fuel. 100
LL usually runs between 5.85 and 5.95 pounds per gallon.
I have seen electronic automotive scales used that have a caution listed that they are
only accurate within 2 percent. 2 percent of 2000 pounds is 40 pounds! Not insignificant!
If there is considerable tare and full fuel the total weight might be 2600 or more and the
2 percent error would be 52 pounds. After subtracting the tare and fuel you would still
have the full error!
Are the tires heavy duty? Lots of us use heavier tires than are required. Many of the
airplanes of the 60s had tubeless. Adding a tube adds considerable weight.
Lots of chances for extra weight to sneak in on us!
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980831 004705 msg05034.tex]

1143
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Owner Maintenance
Sat, 20 Mar 1999 23:58:15

Good Evening All,

It is getting a little difficult to follow who said what to who! If anyone is interested, my
comments follow these messages
In a message dated 3/20/99 7:21:35 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 18:55:27 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

One way to keep the cost down is to learn how, and do a lot of your own
work.
Yep ... I’m working on it. But it takes time and is only for the small stuff
presently.
Thanks.
-jts

One can only save money by doing his own maintenance if his earning capabilities are
less than the charge of those who maintain aircraft professionally.
In my area, the shops charge some 50 to 60 bucks an hour to work on general aviation
style aircraft.
If you are a Doctor, a Lawyer or an Indian Chief who can earn more than that per hour
for your labor, you are probably better off financially to hire the work done.
I have never earned those lofty sums per hour for my labors, so I do save money by
working on my own airplane.
But that isn’t the principal reason I like to do my own work. It is satisfying to have
attained the knowledge to do so and I find the work interesting and fulfilling. If you
also are so inclined, maintain your own bird.
If your reason for doing so is merely to save money, possibly you shouldn’t attempt it.
You might well be better off to improve your performance in your principal field of en-
deavor so that you can do what you enjoy and make sufficient funds to pay a professional
to maintain your aircraft.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990320 235815 msg03079.tex]

1144
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Owner Maintenance
Tue, 21 Dec 1999 10:29:05

In a message dated 12/21/99 1:13:44 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

Here’s a question for ya:

According to the FARs, a pilot can replace ”bulbs, reflectors, and lenses
of position and landing lights.” 1. Does that include wingtip strobes? 2.
If replacing the strobe lamps requires removing the wingtip, do the FARs
permit the removal of the wingtip in order to do so?
[I can remember a discussion (not here) about the replacement of brake
pads. The theory is that if you remove the wheel to change a tire, the pads
fall out. Why not replace them with new ones? :-)]
What do *you* think?
...doug

Good Morning ...doug,

I am sure you have already read this, but for those who haven’t:
”Part 43.3, (g)
The holder of a pilot certificate issued under Part 61 may perform preventive mainte-
nance on any aircraft owned or operated by that pilot which is not used under Part 121,
127, 129, or 135.
Part 43, Appendix A, (c)
Preventive Maintenance. Preventive maintenance is limited to the following work, pro-
vided it does not involve complex assembly operations.”
The FAA then goes on to describe thirty operations that are considered preventive
maintenance items.
You will note that the descriptive paragraph titled ”Preventive Maintenance” is a little
disjointed. The reason for that odd wording is that it formerly said something like this:
Preventive maintenance includes, but is not limited to, the following work, provided it
does not involve complex assembly operations.
Taking out those three little words ”but is not” and replacing them with ”is” makes a
major change in how the paragraph may be interpreted.
Whether or not the functions that you describe are considered preventive maintenance
depends on the viewpoint of the person making the evaluation!
I tend to think that they are, but the important thing is whether or not you would feel

1145
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

comfortable defending that position at a hearing!

The change was made some time ago and seemed to elicit very little response from the
aviation community.
I think that is a pity, the old way seemed reasonable to me!
In any case, no maintenance can be performed by anyone, A&P, IA, Repairman, Repair
Station, or other entity if that entity has not performed that function before. The
proper documentation must be used to assure compliance with all pertinent data and
the performance of that maintenance must be properly entered in the aircraft records.
Not much help am I!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS The next question is: What constitutes ”having performed the function before”?
[ARTICLES/19991221 102905 msg12171.tex]

1146
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Painting the Gear

Tue, 18 Aug 1998 18:25:24

Good Evening John,

In a message dated 98-08-18 17:32:05 EDT, you write:

I’d like your input as to whether or not I should have my landing gear
painted with the powder-coat process vs. doing them with epoxy primer
and enamel.

I don’t know. I wanted to get my landing gear wheels powder coated and I called Beech
to see what their thoughts were. They suggested that I call Cleveland and ask them.
Clevelands response was that they were looking into the process but were not sure what
the required elevated temperatures would do to the wheels structural integrity.
I did not have my wheels powder coated.
I don’t think I would have my struts powder coated without some assurance from a
qualified and knowledgable engineer that the process would not have a negative effect
on the structural integrity of the unit.
I personally don’t think the high temperature would hurt them at all, BUT I am not an
engineer and would respect the engineering opinion.
Give Raytheon a call and see what they say!
Sorry for such a waffling answer,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980818 182524 msg04510.tex]

1147
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Pitot Mast Screws

Tue, 10 Mar 1998 20:22:26

Good Evening Greg,

In a message dated 98-03-10 18:37:36 EST, you write:

I’m having trouble finding the screws that are used to attach the heated
pitot head to the ”mast” that attaches it to the wing. These appear to be
*something* like a #6 screw with a 40 thread... Definitely an odd size. I
can’t find any reference to them in the beech shop/parts manual.
Does anyone know what these fasteners are and where I might find them?
The ones on my airplane are in really rough shape!
-Greg

My parts catalog shows these as MS24693S224 screws. I don’t know if they are the same
on all Bonanzas but I would imagine it is a good possibility.
I don’t see them listed in my usual catalog sources so I would imagine you are correct
in that they are number 6-40s which would be the National Fine thread.
Try Rapid (Raytheon Parts Company) They are usually not too far out of line on prices
for AN hardware and the good thing is they tend to have the oddball stuff.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980310 202226 msg01174.tex]

1148
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Pulling up the assist step, was Annual from heaven.

Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:19:06

In a message dated 7/20/00 11:25:21 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Actually, how are they tied together? I mean, if the cable is pulled by the
nose gear, it pulls its own spring, but how does that pull the step down?

Good Morning Jerry,

Very simple answer.
It doesn’t!
The step is pulled down by the cable that is attached to the nose gear.
The early airplanes had two shock cords. One was used to pull the step up and the other
was used to pull the cable back when the nose gear came up. There is a little angle
attached to the top of the step. It has a hole in it through which the cable slides. Above
that hole is fitting on the step extension cable which is too big to go through the hole
in the small piece of angle aluminum. When the nose gear goes down, it pulls the step
out. The shock cord which is attached to the step and the one attached to the cable
are both extended. If the step should hang up and not want to retract, the shock cord
attached to the cable will still pull it up and out of the way so that the cable doesn’t
get fouled in the nose gear area.
A nice simple and very workable system.
The problem comes when the housing through which the cable extends becomes dirty
or gets misaligned. That makes it difficult for the nose gear to pull on the cable. There
is a weak link on the nose gear attachment of the cable which is supposed to break if
the cable gets too hard to pull. That is sometimes replaced by a stronger link after it
breaks a few times. Occasionally the strain becomes so great that the nose gear doesn’t
get all of the way extended and it collapses on landing.
Not good at all!
Another problem that can cause trouble, besides the dirty or misaligned cable housing,
is the effort by some folks to add additional strength to the retraction mechanism via
more shock cords or stronger springs.
The factory early on sent out a SB recommending the addition of a second shock cord
to help raise the step. Anything that helps raise the step puts a bigger pull on the nose
gear as it extends. Add a big enough load and it won’t extend all of the way!
Since the shock cords spend most of their life in the stretched position, they don’t last
too long. They should be replaced every couple of years. The factory offered a spring
kit to eliminate the problem of shock cords getting worn out and not being replaced.

1149
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

The main reason the step does not retract is that it gets dirty. When it gets dirty, the
chrome is worn off. That creates more friction and things get worse. Many misguided
souls tend to lubricate the step leg. That is not recommended as the step then attracts
more dirt.
It is meant to be left dry and not lubricated. The phenolic blocks in which the step
slides should be cleaned a couple of times a year and the step will need to be rechromed
every four or five years.
When it is properly maintained, the step will retract nicely with just the one shock cord
pulling it up.
Another factor in the step retraction equation is the speed at which the airplane is flying
when the gear is retracted. The lower the airspeed, the easier it will retract!
Get it off the ground, pick up five knots above the lift off speed and get rid of those
draggy wheels. That will let the step retract easier as well as look a lot neater.
I found that the step needed cleaning about every six months to retain proper operation.
That included removing it from the airplane and properly cleaning the phenolic blocks.
NO lubrication! New chrome helps a lot. If you wait until the chrome is looking bad,
the step will not be retracting as easily as it should.
Once again. It is an ingenious solution, but it does take some TLC.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000721 081906 msg11180.tex]

1150
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Purchase
Tue, 6 Jan 1998 09:01:29

Good Morning Eric and All,

In a message dated 98-01-06 07:12:58 EST, you write:

As for the logs, the plane is 36 years old. If the logs are complete for the last
31 of those years; if all applicable AD’s and SB’s have been complied with
and logged as such; and if a thorough pre-buy yields no un-accounted-for
damage, are logs for the years 1961 through 1966 REALLY that important?

I tend to agree with Eric as to the possibility that the airplane could still be a good buy
at SOME price.
I think it is difficult to over pay for a jewel. Ten percent above book is probably still
a good buy but there just aren’t very many low time NDH 36 year old airplanes out
there. The items listed by Larry as detriments aren’t all that bad if the price is right.
However new paint, new interior and a new major on the engine by a non name shop
are all items that the ”used car” type salesman will do to an airplane to make it move.
Much more important, as Eric points out, is the actual condition of the airframe. Is there
any hail damage? How about internal corrosion especially inside the control surfaces?
Can you see where the repairs were made? Have the struts been rebuilt and by whom?
Was the landing gear rebuilt? What is the total airframe time? Does it fly straight,
coordinated and fast? An airframe that has had five or six thousand hours of excellent
maintenance with all service bulletins complied with and factory component rebuild
times complied with, may still be a jewel where a two thousand hour airplane that has
set outside by the sea shore and never flown could be almost impossible to repair.
It is not easy to evaluate the condition and impossible to evaluate the abuse an airframe
has suffered in 36 years but that is the way it is in aviation today. As Larry knows, a
fresh annual doesn’t mean a thing. All that is required is the airplane meet the minimum
airworthiness requirements the day it is annualed.
Since Larry is an A&P I would imagine his trained eye can make the evaluation, it would
probably be a good idea though, to get a second opinion from an acknowledged Bonanza
expert before determining the value of the airframe.
Tain’t easy is it!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19980106 090129 msg00119.tex]

1151
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Rear Bulkhead Inspection

Fri, 13 Jun 1997 14:40:13

Hi Dennis
Concerning the required 100 hour inspection of the rear bulkhead on the Bonanza.
If you will look at paragraph (b) which starts out ”For all airplane models, visually in-
spect the fuselage bulkheads” etc., you will note that the last sentence of that paragraph
reads ”Repeat this inspection at each 100-hour TIS interval thereafter.”
This inspection is required of all model 35s except those that have been converted to
that funny looking inverted ”T” tail. It is one of the few things that are mandatory
every 100 hours regardless of the type of flying the aircraft is subjected to. If you fly the
airplane over 100 hours without having the inspection performed, you are illegal. That
was the primary change between AD 87-20-02 R1 and AD 94-20-4.
Keep ’em legal!
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970613 144013 msg01143.tex]

1152
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Rear Seat Removal

Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:42:43

In a message dated 6/15/00 2:24:09 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Is it legal to fly the Bo with only the front seats in?

Good Afternoon Eric,

As Always!
It Depends.
On the straight model 35 aircraft, a portion of the rear seat back is a structural member
that stiffens the sides of the fuselage and helps hold them in column. If the seat back is
not installed, a suitable FAA approved brace must replace the seat back.
For all of the others, it would be my opinion that the aircraft could be flown without
the rear seats.
The newer aircraft generally have the appropriate data in the POH.
For those aircraft without that data, I would make an appropriate entry in the aircraft
records that the seats had been removed as a Minor Alteration. That, and a corrected
weight and balance, along with a corrected equipment list, should make the operation
legal for any of them. A licensed airframe mechanic can make such an entry.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000615 174243 msg09744.tex]

1153
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Rear Window Latch

Wed, 17 Dec 1997 17:13:52

Good Evening Peter,

In a message dated 97-12-17 15:40:26 EST, you write:

Same old story - Beech wants $185 for a small bracket which attaches to
the wall of the airplane. The rear window locks into this bracket with a
pin. The part is simply worn and needs to be replaced. At $50 it would
still be robbery.

I have been looking at my parts book trying to figure out which piece you are referring
to. My manual does not cover your airplane specifically but as I recall they have the
same locking mechanism as my V35B.
The very early airplanes had the the mechanism go well over center and that was the
primary thing that kept the windows closed. There was a small spring clip but with the
over center unit properly adjusted, they would stay closed even if the clip was broken
or missing. When the additional upholstery was added, the over center mechanism no
longer did a very good job so a positive latch was added. If your airplane has that
positive latch and it is not catching due to the slot or latch being worn, I think a repair
could be made from flat stock under FAR 43 as normal repair or as a minor alteration
depending on the thoughts of your IA.
Am I missing what is worn or not working?
Yours,
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19971217 171352 msg02786.tex]

1154
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Reccurring Maintenance
Fri, 23 Oct 1998 08:23:00

Good Morning Ron Koyich,

In a message dated 10/23/98 1:38:23 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

Only got one response to my 2000 hour questions the other day - do either
of you have any comments?

I remember seeing your message but can’t locate it now, the following is in response to
what I ’think’ you asked.
I haven’t looked in my copy of Norm Colvins book to verify this, but it is my recollection
that he felt that many of the 2000 hour items were somewhat of an overkill. As an
example, I believe he recommended not pulling the landing gear and rebuilding it if it
seemed to have been well greased and maintained.
I tend to agree on this particular item with one reservation. The early airplanes had
more grease fittings than do the later ones. My 1978 V35B has no grease fitting on the
aft main gear trunnion bolt. I am not sure at precisely what point in history that fitting
disappeared. When I noted the missing fitting, I asked Norm about it and he didn’t
know either. It was his feeling at the time that if the gear is not pulled for inspection
at 2000 hours, that bolt should be pulled, inspected and hand greased.
I guess what I am trying to say is: Doing the 2000 hour items sure can’t hurt but maybe
careful attention to those points and evaluation of the need for service would suffice.
My airplane is currently around the 2500 hour mark and I have been trying to pick
at those things. It lives in a heated air-conditioned hangar and the only time it is on
unimproved areas is at Oshkosh and Sun ’n Fun. Things stay pretty clean and I NEVER
power wash anything. So far I have found very little wear in the areas concerned. An
airplane that lives outdoors and is exposed to hard service in less than ideal conditions
might well require much more often and thorough maintenance.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19981023 082300 msg06210.tex]

1155
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Removing the Wings

Tue, 14 Sep 1999 23:24:46

In a message dated 9/14/99 9:10:06 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I made some wing stands that are adjustable and have a wooden form cut
out the shape of the wing with some pipe insulation installed to protect the
paint. This allows you to pull the wing away without any problem - there
is no jerking or tugging if the wing is supported fully. We use the airframe
jacks to raise the fuselage up and down in order to put full pressure on our
wing supports.

Good Evening Ed,

That sounds like a good method to me! I particularly like the idea of using the airframe
jack to provide a controlled method of taking the strain off the wings. Every time that
I have been involved with removing a wing, it has been done with pure unadulterated
man power and there were always many tense moments!
I saw the rig that the Lufthansa school at Goodyear Airport, Phoenix, Arizona used
and I was very impressed. They had canvas slings to support both the inner portion
and the outer portion of the wing. There were three screw jacks arranged with two
at the inboard end and one at the tip. By adjusting them individually, any angle of
dihedral and pitch could be accommodated. The whole thing was on wheels. It really
was impressive!
It would, however, be a bear to store!
They had also modified their interiors to make the disconnection process simpler. We
were told they could put the airplane in the shop at sundown, pull the wings, make a
repair on a cracked center section spar and have the airplane back on the line for the
next day’s flying! They didn’t say how much manpower was required.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990914 232446 msg08437.tex]

1156
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Replacement Heim Bearings

Wed, 24 Jun 1998 16:04:17

Good Afternoon John Foose,

In a message dated 98-06-24 14:20:53 EDT, you write:

Several of them have the same part no. Bob, I have no explaination as
to why one of your differential control rods bearings was .015 wider than
called for, with the same part No. yet. It’s hard to imagine that .015 would
make a difference,

Once again I have failed to make myself clear.

If you purchase the bearing from Beech/Raytheon/Rapid, it will have been ground down
so as to fit in the mixer mechanism properly. If you use a stock Heim bearing it will be
.015 over size and will not fit with out hammering it into position.
Definitely not good!
The standard dimension for the bearing face to face is .500 inches. It is ground down
to .485. The grinding is done either by or at the behest of the Beech/Raytheon folks
and the Heim number is still the same but the bearing dimension face to face is now
smaller. Every unit that I have purchased from them has been so ground. It is obvious
when they are inspected that the grinding was done after original manufacture.
Not all of the Heim end bearings in the airplane are so modified. The only ones that
I have checked thoroughly are ones on the ruddervator tubes on ”J” model and later
airplanes.
Fifteen thousands of an inch makes for a major mis-fit when forced between two ma-
chined aluminum protrusions.
Once again, if the part number in the current parts book is a Beech or Raytheon part
number and not the product manufacturers number or an AN number, that part has un-
dergone some modification or additional testing in order to be used in the Beech/Raytheon
aircraft.
Purchasing such a part from Berry Bearing or any other source and using it on the air-
plane is not legal and may or may not be safe depending on the part and it’s application.
If the part is listed in the Beech parts book by an unmodified AN number than it may
be purchased at any traceable source and used legally on the airplane. If it is listed by
the manufacturers part number, most people feel that it may be used freely but there
are some who argue that it must have an approved traceability, whatever that is!
With apologies to Frank Kerner, I will jump in on your question to him as long as I
have the computer going!
The standard ”flat” or ”thrust” washer is the AN960-XXX with the ”X”s indicating the

1157
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

size. The ”flat washer, large area” or ”wood” washer is an AN970-XXX.

The term wood washer comes from it’s use on wood spars and such to distribute the
load.
Those who are automotively inclined might liken it to a fender washer only it is built to
an AN specification.
There was an AD or Service Bulletin (I forget which) several years ago requiring the
use of an appropriate size AN 970 washer on the throttle linkage of at least one Piper
product to preclude the throttle becoming diconnected if the rod end bearing failed. I
tend to use them on the Bonanza for the same purpose.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980624 160417 msg03307.tex]

1158
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Replacement Zerk Fittings

Thu, 5 Feb 1998 23:25:56

Good Evening Glenn and Ray,

In a message dated 98-02-05 19:49:25 EST, you write:

Glenn: I tried using threaded ones where this happened. a tap seems to
work pretty good to get them in and then some loktite holds them forever.

I have been told that Beech does not approve of trying to put threaded zerk fittings in
place of the drive-in type in the scissor assembly. It seems there is not sufficient metal
to do so and retain design strength. The later units which have threaded zerk fittings
have substantilly larger bosses formed for that purpose.
The Loctite would certainly be worth a try.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Worry Wart
[ARTICLES/19980205 232556 msg00797.tex]

1159
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Replacing The Step

Mon, 16 Jun 1997 10:54:03

More for Peter,

One thing I forgot to mention.
These airplanes are built very much ”one at a time” and parts for one airplane are not
necessarily direct replacements for another aircraft. This is definitely the case for the
non-retractable steps. I have found different bolt hole patterns on most every step that
I have checked. Generally not a lot of difference, but it appears that they are drilled to
fit at the time of installation. You certainly want to be sure and use the step that was
originally installed and not try to buy a good used replacement, It may not fit!
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970616 105403 msg01162.tex]

1160
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Replacing the Step

Mon, 16 Jun 1997 10:00:16

Hi Peter,
You are on the right tack. The side panels should be removed in order to get out the
bottom pan.
I have known people who have forced it out without doing so, but it usually causes
collateral damage to the trim. The earlier airplanes had side stringers and wooden
floorboards which were removable easily for maintenance. Some years ago Beech went
to the metal floor pan which incorporated the side stringers in the pan. It was called an
improvement! (It was cheaper and slightly lighter. A pound or less)
I had to replace the step on my airplane some time ago and it is a big job. While I had
the pan out, I added captured floating nut plates to hold the step on and now it can be
replaced without removing the floor. The ideal time to do the job would be during an
interior refurbishment.
I have been told other people have added another inspection plate to the area in the
pan above the step so that the nuts holding the step in place could be accessed. If yout
AI thinks that that would come under the guidance of the FARs as a minor alteration
it would probably be OK, (be sure the modification is listed in your aircraft log) or it
could be done as a local approval. Incidentally, I personally feel that the removal of the
floor pan should be done under the supervision of a licensed mechanic. If you are not
so rated I would suggest you confer with your friendly A+P before proceding further.
Enjoy,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970616 100016 msg01160.tex]

1161
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Replacing the Step

Tue, 17 Jun 1997 12:13:50

Hi Peter,
Taking off the side panels isn’t all that difficult but I think your decision to bring your
engineer in the loop is a wise one.
May I assume you are in Canada? I’m not up to date on canadian maintenance and
modification procedures but I’m sure your engineer will know how to handle the paper
work.
As to why Beech (Raytheon) decided to eliminate the nut plates, the easy answer is
cost. I imagine it was very difficult (considering the almost custom building of these
airframes) to pre-attach the nut plates before assembly and still get nice tight alignment
of the step to the fuselage. Stopping to install nut plates during the assembly of the
step to the airframe would have taken an extra 15 minutes or so and it all adds up!
V-tail or straight tail they are FABULOUS airplanes.
Good luck,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970617 121350 msg01180.tex]

1162
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Replacing the Step

Tue, 17 Jun 1997 12:24:14

P.S. for Peter

If you and your engineer do decide to put on nut plates, I would strongly recommend
using floating nut plates. It makes it much easier to assure that the step is nice and
snug to the side as well as to the bottom of the fuselage.
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970617 122414 msg01181.tex]

1163
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Repllacement Heim Bearings

Mon, 22 Jun 1998 10:26:18

Good Morning John,

In a message dated 98-06-22 01:05:15 EDT, you write:

I heard of one fellow here in our area who paid $250 for a rod end from
Beech to replace one on the ruddervator push rods to comply with that
latest AD note, and talked to another guy who got one with the same part
number at a bearing house for $11. Same part number; he put it on and it
does fly ok.

Replacing Raytheon parts with generic parts can be a problem. The example you quote
is potentially quite a serious one.
The rod ends on the ruddervator push rods that I have examined have all had a nominal
distance across the bearing face of .485 inch. The Heim end of the same part number
has a dimension of .500 across the same point. I discovered this when one of the units I
was removing for the AD was very difficult to get out.
Evidently it had been replaced with the generic Heim end when the earlier service
bulletin was complied with. (Wasn’t in the log book though) The tabs on the ruddervator
mixer arm were slightly bent and the sides showed evidence that the rod end had been
forced in place. I cold straightened the tabs, dye checked the area for cracks and feel
that no permanent harm was done. I still can’t imagine a licensed mechanic forcing that
bearing in place! It just goes to show that all are not as careful as they should be. I
guess that is the definitive hammer mechanic.
I purchased several new rod ends direct from Rapid at the time of the latest control rod
AD and they were all in the range of $25 though I also heard war stories of much higher
prices being paid.
I don’t know whether the reduced dimension rod end is common to all Bonanzas but
I would imagine it is. All of the airplanes I checked required them. It is evidentally
something that is done either by the Beech/Raytheon factory or at their behest after
the rod ends come from Heim.
Why was the dimension reduced? I don’t know. There is no problem with clearance
around the area they are used and I would imagine the arms could easily have been
machined to accept the larger dimension.
I do have an unsubstantiated theory though. Many of the parts on our beloved airplane
were engineered to be able to use WWII surplus parts which were available by the ton.
One example is the use of gun turret drive motors for the gear and flap retraction units.
I would imagine that there was ton of rod ends that had been specially modified for
some military use which did require the reduced dimension and Beech just designed the
ruddervator arms to use them.

1164
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Anything in the Beech parts book which has a specified Beech part number rather than a
generic manufacturers part number or an AN number, should be purchased from Rapid
due to the possibility of modification or additional inspection being required.
An example? You will note that many of the AN bolts listed in the manual have an
”M” after the AN number. That denotes a required magnetic inspection for the bolt
before installation. If you purchase them from Rapid that will have been done and the
bolt painted green or purple to denote the process used.
I have purchased wheel bearings and such from bearing supply houses for older airplanes
where there was no other source and with careful inspection I would think there is no
safety problem, but the rules still say otherwise.
Such is life!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980622 102618 msg03227.tex]

1165
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Restoration Practicality
Thu, 16 Sep 1999 16:38:49

In a message dated 9/16/99 2:11:52 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

What do you think a plane like this is worth?

How much do you think that it would cost to bring it back to tip top shape?

Good Afternoon Brian,

There is nothing inanimate that can’t be restored if you are willing to spend enough
money.
Look at the rebuild which the Staggerwing Museum and others did on old serial number
one Beechcraft. It was nothing but a few pieces dug up from a farmers field when they
started on it!
The big question is whether or not such a program is a practical one for you. Should
you decide to undertake it, remember that the cost to repair and rebuild a G model will
be substantially the same as it would be to completely renovate a relatively new aircraft
and it is unlikely that the market value of the G would reflect that cost.
Corrosion of the airframe is the biggest obstacle to restoration of an old aluminum
airframe. They can be reskinned and even new frames may be available if those are
damaged. The cost would be very high.
Unless the airframe is in exceptionally good condition, I doubt if the airplane would be
financially practical to rebuild even if you received it as a gift!
Should you decide to do so, there would be a tremendous satisfaction in knowing that
you had saved the old girl from a certain death!
I agree with Steve that your estimates of expenses are probably about fifty percent of
what the likely costs would be and there are a number of small detail things which you
list as miscellaneous which could equal the total expenditure of all of the rest of the
items together. There is a reason besides the lawyer driven liability which runs the cost
of a new Bonanza as high as it is. There is a lot of work to building one and that is
what you are proposing to do with a rebuild as extensive as the one you describe.
I wish you the best and hope that the airframe is not in as bad a shape as it sounds,
but I am afraid that my advice to you would be to proceed only with extreme caution.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990916 163849 msg08526.tex]

1166
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Retractable Step
Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:15:17

Bill Fleming,
The early airplanes had a retractable step. It went up and down with the landing gear.
(If it was working right)
The step is on a piece of streamline tubing but the tube is turned flat side to the
airstream so as to gain the greatest strength. It’s a very high drag configuration.
The retraction system is very temperamental. It must be kept scrupulously clean and
well aligned for it to work properly. It is extended by a cable that hooks to the nose gear
through a small aluminum weak link and retracted by shock cords (sometimes replaced
with springs) behind the rear baggage compartment shear web
I always found that I could get it working at annual time but by the third or fourth
month after, it was starting to not retract all of the way and by six months it either
didn’t retract at all or was at least still hanging part way out. Beech approved of adding
some stronger shock cords and someone came out with an STC for springs.
Beech said DON’T lubricate it and keep the chrome in good shape and nice and clean
and dry.
I never wanted to try anything stronger than the original strength shock cords. The
weak link would break rather easily and I didn’t want that to happen. A lot of people
put in stronger weak links but then a fair number of airplanes had collapsed nose gears
when the step mechanism would hang up and the weak link didn’t break. It’s kind of
like towing the airplane with the the nose wheel axle instead of the towing pins. The
weak link was there for a reason!!
I finally gave up and removed the step. If you do that be sure and have an A&P make a
log book entry and adjust the weight and balance. I consider it a minor alteration but
I have talked to some who consider it to be a major alteration requiring a 337 and local
approval.
Also without the step you put yourself at risk for greater strain on the flaps. The step
stool is a good idea but it obviously won’t be available all of the time.
The newer airplanes with the fixed steps are much lower drag. Some of the early Debbies
had one with a round tube and I assume that is rather draggy. The later style with
the streamline tube in the minimum drag position doesn’t seem too bad. Mine is off
but I can’t really tell any difference. There is no way that I know of to make the direct
comparison such as my son and I were able to do in the old model 35 some 42 years ago.
I have heard the figure of one or two mph drag reduction with the new style removed
but I sure don’t know.
More than you ever wanted to know, right!!!

1167
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Yours,
Bob
PS We missed you at Deerfield.
[ARTICLES/19971003 201517 msg01925.tex]

1168
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Retractable Step
Sun, 5 Oct 1997 01:50:08

To Frank Woods
In a message dated 97-10-05 00:01:31 EDT, you write:

Even if I were to stand on the step while the gear were retracted (on jacks),
the net result would be slack in the cable because the cable pulls the step
down, the spring raises the step.

PS– If this is the way your step operates there is a spring or shock cord missing or they
are improperly rigged. There is supposed to be one shock cord connected to the cable
and another to the step. That is so that if the step sticks in the down position, the
shock cord attached to the cable will pull it up and keep the slack out of the cable when
the gear is retracted. There is a sliding fitting over the cable that extends the step but
does not inhibit the cable from being properly retracted if the step refuses to retract.
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19971005 015008 msg01941.tex]

1169
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Retractable Step
Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:50:15

In a message dated 7/21/00 9:19:37 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Would you pls. see my further ?’s below? Thx.

From: [email protected] the step will need to be rechromed every four
or five years. Is the step made of steel or aluminum? Can any place that
does chroming do it or does it have to be an aviation place?
I found that the step needed cleaning about every six months to retain
proper operation. Bob, would you say this only applies in those midwest
grass strips? (As opposed to asphalt strips). Thx.
PS: I thought you were at Oshkosh?

Good Morning Jerry,

1. The step is made of steel.
2. Any good chrome shop is OK. I suppose there might be a purist out there who would
argue the point, but I don’t see why!
3. No, I think the things just get dirty everywhere. Dust from asphalt, concrete or just
the atmosphere seems to accumulate on the phenolic blocks. Obviously, operation in
water where things are splashing up from the wheels would be worse. It wouldn’t hurt
to wipe the step off often, especially after operations where it is obvious that things have
been thrown on it.
I found that my step needed some TLC after about six months, regardless of where or
how much I flew the airplane.
Incidentally, I made arrangements to extend and retract the step at will for a test flight.
I found that with a straight model 35 powered by an E185-11 and indicating 140 mph,
extending the step would slow me down five mph. When it was retracted, the aircraft
would quickly regain about four MPH and within a minute or two, be back at the full
140 IAS.
Well worth the effort to keep it fully retracted.
4. We will meet the group at RFD on Sunday and leave for Oshkosh around 1400
Monday. Will we see you there?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000721 115015 msg11189.tex]

1170
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Rigging
Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:50:33

Hi Ron Davis,
In a message dated 97-10-06 17:22:39 EDT, you write:

I believe that the stop-to-stop travel jigs you describe are the ones listed in
the back of the original ”Model Thirty Five Maintenance Manual” book.

That’s true, the only problem is that my copy of the original model 35 maintenance
manual is 47 years old and I have been told that those drawings are not applicable to
the new airplanes. There are some other jigs and fixtures for which I have not yet been
able find drawings or descriptions either. I figure that somewhere somebody ought to
have a current set that we might be able to copy.
The BDS stuff is basically the old Mike Smith information and is very good.
All rigging of the Bonanza starts with getting the wings at the proper angle.
That is another problem because of the high price of the wrenches and torque wrench
adapters necessary to loosen and tighten the wing bolts. A full set from Raytheon runs
about $10,000.00 but there are other people selling usable ones for less.
I sure would like to find a set of the factory tools that could be looked at. I wonder if
anybody has spent that kind of money for the jigs and travel boards?
Thanks for the input.
Anybody else have any ideas?
Bob
[ARTICLES/19971006 185033 msg01971.tex]

1171
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Rigging
Wed, 18 Feb 1998 18:31:47

Good Evening David,

In a message dated 98-02-18 16:31:12 EST, you write:

Some of my reading supports your thoughts on rigging being a strong ap-

proach to speed improvement. I wonder if it’s not something of an art
which few shops are really capable of excellence and results??? I’d like to
find a shop known to have this talent on board and would be willing to
travel for such quality of workmanship if it’s known to anyone.

The neat thing that Mike Smith had going for him was that he did so many. He could
fly the airplane and then know pretty well ”how much to move what”. Most any shop
with the tools can make adjustments and then fly to check it out and eventually arrive
at a very good rig.
Several years ago we had a WBS convention in Mesa where we went over to the Lufthansa
operation at Goodyear Arizona. They probably have the best maintenance facility in
the country for 33s, 35s, 36s and Barons. At that time they weren’t interested in doing
outside work, but said they might consider some specialized work which required pulling
wing bolts and adjusting wings etc. for which they have extraordinary capability. They
told us that they didn’t make any effort to make the airplanes fast, but they were very
competent in doing the mechanical portion of the work. What is needed is a shop with
that capability and some individual who really wants to get in to being a rigging expert.
Isn’t there one among us who would like to take on that challenge? There seems to be
considerable interest.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980218 183147 msg00996.tex]

1172
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Rigging
Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:40:13

Good Afternoon John Whitehead, John Foose and All,

In a message dated 98-02-23 13:21:08 EST, you write:

I stayed for 2 1/2 days. They would rig, then I’d go fly with a mechanic and
we would take notes. Then, the rigging was tweeked and another test flight.
I felt sorry for the mechanic that had to destroy his hands when he adjusted
the turnbuckles several times over (just inside the left aft inspection plate
... forward of the ruddervators).

The folks at the former United Beechcraft were the ones recommended by Norm.
The advantage of someone like Mike Smith, who did so many airplanes, was that he
tended to not have to make as many adjustments.
There is no doubt that any competent shop with the proper equipment can get the job
done. Unfortunately the travel boards and wrenches are VERY expensive. They were
on the list of things the ABS submitted to Raytheon for possible adjustment but I don’t
believe any was made. I seem to recall that equipping oneself with all of the factory
equipment suggested for rigging would run over thirty thousand dollars. I know that
some shops have spent the time to make their own and several have things left over from
the days when the stuff was more reasonably priced.
I would think the travel boards could be made rather reasonably if Raytheon would
release the drawings or dimensions at a workable price. Quite a few people are making
substitute wrenches at a much more affordable amount.
I still hope someone will decide to specialize again as did Mike.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980223 134013 msg01105.tex]

1173
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Rigging
Fri, 6 Aug 1999 13:01:24

In a message dated 8/6/99 11:35:50 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Before I re-rig the plane, I would like to check that the T&B is in the panel
level.

Good Morning Txgroup,

Set a level on the center section spar (seats out) and level the airplane via the jack
points. Adjust the ball bank so it reads level. The stock Beech panel holes are drilled
oversize in the later airplanes to allow a fair amount of adjustment twist. If that is not
enough, you may have to do some filing.
One problem is that if the ball bank (inclinometer) is mounted on the floating panel, it’s
position may vary with panel movement due to aging shock mounts and other factors.
It can change day to day and even during a flight!
Most airliners have a separate inclinometer mounted on a solid non-shock mounted area
of the structure that is used for checking the in-flight rigging. Not a bad idea for us as
well.
One caveat, just properly rigging the rudder may not be enough. If lateral adjustment
is required, the only options are adjusting the trim tabs or flaps, which adds drag, or
moving the wing which is expensive!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990806 130124 msg06709.tex]

1174
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Rigging
Fri, 13 Aug 1999 07:44:43

In a message dated 8/13/99 12:28:00 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

The most interesting thing was that it turned out the rigging wasn’t so
bad after all. The turn coordinator was just not level with the airplane.
The only adjustments we made were (a) about 1/4” on the right flap, and
(b) straightened the turn coordinator. It wasn’t terribly sophisitcated or
accurate, but it did work.

Good Morning Doug,

I note that the out of trim situation was corrected by adjusting the flap. Was a rigging
board used to check the flap alignment to the wing?
If the flap is not at the proper relationship to the wing, it will definitely cause unnecessary
drag!
Should the airplane be wing heavy with the flaps in proper alignment, the wing should
be rotated, it is NOT proper to correct for such an out of rig situation by dropping a
flap.
Small lateral deviations can be corrected by judicious bending of the fixed tabs on the
aileron, but even that should be used sparingly. The proper fix is to move the wing.
It is one thing to make the airplane fly hands off with the ball in the middle. It is
something quite different to have it fly that way and create minimum drag.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990813 074443 msg06900.tex]

1175
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Rigging
Fri, 13 Aug 1999 14:32:58

In a message dated 8/13/99 11:34:01 AM Central Daylight Time, mruthven@impact-

consult.com writes:

Do you know of anyone/anyplace that really does Bonanza rigging *right*.

Mick Ruthven

Good Afternoon Mick,

Unfortunately, I do not. However, any shop which has the requisite jacks, wing cradles,
wing wrenches, travel boards and other rigging jigs should be able to do the job.
My knowledge of the various shops around the country is very limited. I know some
good shops locally, but none that specialize in rigging as did Mike Smith.
No one that I know of has stepped up to replace him as the current guru of rigging.
The place to start is with a good level. As was discussed last week, that is best done by
laterally leveling the airplane on the ground and affixing a good inclinometer to a non
shock mounted portion of the structure. Adjust it to read level with a good level placed
on the front spar carry through structure.
There should be no bend at all in the aileron tabs. The airplane surfaces should be
checked with rigging boards and jigs to ascertain that they are all in the specified
positions. That is easier said then done as Beech specifies that their rigging tools are to
be used for this purpose and a full set from Raytheon would run about thirty-thousand
bucks! Suffice it to say that most folks do a lot of eyeballing and exercise some judgment
with the use of bubble protractors. Travel boards can be made for a relatively low cost.
Plans for them were published in the early maintenance manuals and I suppose they
would either be the same for, or easily adapted, to the newer machines.
Fly the airplane and utilize the rudder and aileron to place the inclinometer ball in the
middle with the airplane flying straight ahead. Absolutely NO turning moment!
Rig the ruddervators by adjusting the trim tab cables per the manual (also mentioned
by Howard Page a couple of days ago) to eliminate any rudder pressure at the speed for
which you are trimming.
If it is necessary to hold aileron or use any aileron trim after all of this, then one wing or
the other needs to be moved. Remember that the aileron trim that is installed on some
Bonanzas is just a spring that holds the pressure for you. Make sure it is not holding
any pressure when you are doing your flight checks.
Chances are the right wing is already rigged with the trailing edge as high as it will go.
That is the way most are installed. That means the left wing trailing edge would need
to be moved up or down as appropriate to eliminate the roll. There is about one-eighth
inch adjustment available on the later airplanes. I don’t remember how much the earlier

1176
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

airplanes can be moved, but it seems to me it was a little more than that.
That is not a bad job IF you have the tools and cradles required. It is strictly a trial
and error procedure and that is where the expertise of Mike Smith came in. He did
enough of them that he could make a pretty good educated guess as to how much the
wing needed to be moved.
If the bolts are more than eight or ten years old, it would be reasonable to replace the
wing bolts and of course, the soft washers need to be replaced every time the wing is
adjusted.
Your best bet for a shop to do this work would be one who pulls and replaces a lot of
wings. You should probably educate yourself so that you are the person who makes the
decision as to which wing to move and how much to move it.
WBS had a fly-in a few years ago where we visited the maintenance facility at Goodyear
airport, Phoenix, that was doing the maintenance on all of the Lufthansa Debase.
They had the best equipment for pulling and replacing wings that I have ever seen. We
asked about their doing some outside work and they said they would consider it. I don’t
know if they do or not.
I have observed some pretty wild forays where barrels where set under the wings and
such which didn’t look very safe to me. Equipment which would allow good control of
the wing without a bunch of people assisting would seem to be a good idea, but most
of the time I have been involved with taking a wing on or off the airplane, it was done
with a whole lot of folks tugging and pulling. Not a very comforting sight!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990813 143258 msg06910.tex]

1177
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Rigging
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:35:35

In a message dated 1/23/01 7:58:07 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Okay Guys:
How many ways can we level the Bo wings? My Bo is still flying right wing
down - significantly.
The ways I know are:
1. Adjust the ailerons 2. Adjust the ruddervators 3. Drop the right flap
a bit 4. Insure that the left flap is not dropped 5. Insure even gas when
testing the plane
Please note, I have no fixed tabs on my ailerons, I have an electric trim on
the left aileron - and yes, if I trim the aileron trim all the way, the plane
will fly level - but the yaw dampener then is super sensitive and thereby
ineffective.
Any ideas appreciated
Steve

Good Evening Steve,

I hate to say this, but the way Beech designed the airplane, the plan was to move the
wing if it needed trimming for a wing low!
The flaps and the ailerons are supposed to be aligned with the wing via travel boards.
The tail feathers are to be adjusted so that no rudder pressure is required to keep the
ball in the middle with the wings level.
And, of course, the ball has to be adjusted so that it reads level when the aircraft is
leveled on the ground as described in the Maintenance Manual.
When the mighty Bonanza was first built, it did not have any trim tabs on the aileron
at all. No little spring knob on the control column either. If the test pilot returned from
a flight and reported that the airplane needed a little tweaking on the roll axis, the wing
bolts were loosened, new soft washers were inserted, the wing angle of incidence was
adjusted and the bolts retightened.
As the months rolled by, Beech realized that was costing a lot of money so they added
the fixed tab on the aileron.
If the improper roll trim could be taken out with the tabs by minor bending, that is the
way the airplane left Wichita. Too much bending of the tabs and the wing was moved
as before. During the worst quality control days of Beechcraft, they started to drop a

1178
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

flap instead of moving the wing when a reasonable amount of bending of the aileron tab
wasn’t enough. Once the flaps are drooped, the airplane becomes a dog. That is one of
the reasons some airplanes are so much slower than others.
I have never done the wing adjustment myself. Folks who do it all of the time say it
really isn’t all that bad, PROVIDED you have all of the proper equipment such as wing
support cradles, jacks and wrenches.
Mike Smith said that the airplanes built during the seventies seemed to be the worst
and were the most likely to have factory drooped flaps to counter a wing low problem.
But, if your wings have ever been off the airplane, they are suspect if the airplane was
not flight tested and the wings adjusted as necessary following wing reinstallation.
Mike also said that getting the wings on right was the basis from which he worked when
rigging for speed.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010123 213535 msg01605.tex]

1179
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Rigging
Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:48:26

In a message dated 1/26/01 11:51:37 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

How do you determine if the wings are properly rotated? Can that be
objectively measured or do you just have to do trial and error testing? If
you (or an A&P) undertake this project, how is it done? Just loosen the
wing bolts and rotate then go test fly? Does the wing have to be completely
disconnected? Is this a major effort? Just wondering how big a deal this
is.
Thanks Ray

Good Afternoon Ray,

Since this is thoroughly covered in the maintenance manual, I will only skim the surface.
The idea is to make sure that the ailerons, flaps and ruddervators are all faired to the
wing and stabilizer surfaces. That takes travel boards. The aircraft is then test flown
to see if the surfaces have to be displaced from those neutral positions to make it fly
straight and level. If they do have to be displaced, the wings should be adjusted.
In general, the wings should have the leading edges as low as possible and the trailing
edges as high as they can be. Once the wing heaviness is determined. The trailing edge
of the wing that wants to drop is lowered. The amount it needs to be lowered is where
the experience of a Mike Smith comes in!
Most often, the right wing is twisted so that the leading edge is as low as it will go and
the trailing edge is placed as high as it will go. The left wing is done the same and the
trailing edge is then dropped a sixteenth of an inch or so as a place to start.
From then on, it should only require adjustment of the left wing, but who knows for
sure!
If you are equipped with all of the jacks, wing stands and wrenches required, it is not a
bad job, but without that stuff it can be a bear!
The airplane is set on jacks and the wing stands are arranged so as to support the wings
once they are loosened.
The bolts are loosened, the top ones are removed and the soft washers taken out and
discarded. New washers are installed, the wing is moved to the new guesstimated posi-
tion. The bolts are reinstalled and torqued. After that comes a test flight and the whole
process is repeated as required.
Each wing is held to the carrythrough structure by four bolts in tension, two uppers
and two lowers. The holes are big enough such that the fit is sloppy. That allows the
wing to be rotated or twisted to increase or decrease the angle of incidence. There is

1180
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

a series of annular ring grooves around the upper holes. A soft aluminum washer is
placed between the wing and the carrythrough structure before tightening. The annular
grooves in the carry through and the wing fitting bite into the soft aluminum and carry
the shear loads. Relatively simple, but it takes experience to know how much to move
the wing and a lot of equipment to do the job properly.
I have seen folks do the job with nothing more than wrenches and a lot of people lifting
and tugging. I wouldn’t try that myself and don’t recommend it to anyone else!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010126 154826 msg01907.tex]

1181
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Saunders Spar Strap’

Fri, 4 Aug 2000 23:19:33

In a message dated 8/4/00 9:48:10 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

My comments about the strap design seem a bit snider than I had in-
tended, but my basic question remains- what, if any, advantage does this
modification provide a 35 operator not engaging in routine aerobatics?

Good Evening Bill,

I rather liked your comments!
The various spar strap modifications that have been added to the early V-tails and
the Twin Beech are all rather unnecessary if the aircraft is operated within it’s design
limits and inspected regularly. The last time I checked, there had been some sixteen
or so tubular Bonanza spars that had been found to be cracked all of the way through,
but only one V-tail that came apart in flight due to the failure of the center section
spar. There is considerable evidence that the subject airplane had not been inspected
in accordance with an active AD and the airplane was overloaded and buzzing on a hot
summer day. Following a high speed pass, the aircraft was pulled up sharply and the
wing failed.
The Twin Beeches never had a problem as long as they were properly maintained and
flown at their design weights. After they were allowed to be turned into freighters, the
spars that were not properly maintained incurred internal rust and corrosion. Added
to that were operations that were conducted at weights as high as fifteen thousand
pounds. The poor thing was only designed to be flown at around 9700 pounds and even
the highest aftermarket gross that I am aware of was only for ten thousand, two hundred
pounds.
Any piece of machinery can be destroyed if one is determined to destroy it!
The spar straps for the Bonanza series are a device looking for suckers to buy them!
I appreciate the comments of you and George as it is nice to know what engineers think
of the problem, but I am convinced that there is no smoking gun that needs to be
silenced. I just hope that the FAA doesn’t try to do something stupid just because it
can be done!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000804 231933 msg11761.tex]

1182
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Sound Dampening
Fri, 18 Sep 1998 19:13:37

In a message dated 9/18/98 5:09:14 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Is it specificly sold by aircraft supply companies or is it a common insulation

material that can be found at Home Depot type places? Also, this may
be dumb but I need to ask, do you stick it directly to the skins or to the
underside of the floorboards? If it’s stuck to the skin do I need to worry
about moisture trapped between the aluminum and the sticky stuff leading
to corrision?

Good Evening Mark Mantei,

I don’t know what was used by the others, but I installed some stuff on my airplane
during an extensive rework in 1991.
I don’t remember exactly where I got it, but I believe it was at one of the local supply
houses such as Grainger or McMaster Carr.
The product was made by 3M and on the box it says:
Sound Damper Tape
Foil/Foam Laminate
Y-370

It came in a box containing fifteen sheets eighteen inches wide, four feet long and one
quarter inch thick with a paper backing over the sticky side.
It weighs one pound fourteen ounces with the paper on and one pound twelve ounces
worth the paper removed.
My recollection was that it was rather expensive. Could have been as much as twenty
bucks a sheet but I can’t locate the invoice.
I was worried about the trapping of moisture and never found anyone who had an
authoritative answer to the question. So far I have noted no problem but my airplane
lives in a heated air-conditioned hangar. Who knows?
I was advised by one of the sound gurus to only place the material on the center portion
of each bay. I kept it back about an inch from the stringers and bulkheads so it is
unlikely that there will be any spots that can collect and hold moisture (I hope).
On the firewall, I put it everyplace I could get it in. No gaps at all. Horrible job!
Incidentally, if you found any paint on the belly skins or any where else in the interior, it
was paint that was applied after the aircraft left the factory. The interiors were unpainted
till the 1979 models came out in the fall of 1978. Some components were painted starting

1183
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

about a year before, but the complete interior did not receive the priming coat of paint
till D-10179.
I placed the 3M material on all of the skin panels beneath the floorboards and on the
bottom of the floorboards where practical. Don’t have any idea whether it was a good
idea or not.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980918 191337 msg05500.tex]

1184
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Spar Crack Inspection

Wed, 21 May 1997 09:14:59

Hi Ralph, I’m sure some one who is much more familiar than I with the origination
of the spar crack problem will come up with the information, but meanwhile—
I believe the first cracks were found in the model 33’s, 36’s and Barons used to train
Lufthansa pilots out at Goodyear Arizona. Those airplanes lead a very rough life but
are given absolutely fabulous maintenance. I’m sure they were found long before the rest
of us would have spotted them. After that, quite a few Barons, some used in training
but others that were not, were found with cracks. It seemed that we who lead rather
benign lives with our V-tails didn’t have too much to worry about.
Unfortunately, a friend of mine found a crack in his very clean and not abused M model
a couple of months ago. His is just a ”stop drill” problem at this time.
The degree of difficulty of the inspection is very subjective. The first one that I did
took quite a while. I found it necessarry to remove several components to adequately
observe the affected areas. Also the airplane bled red dye for several months after the
inspection. I have learned to be a little stingier with the dye penetrant since then. I
recently did a J model and felt that it was necessary to remove the heat duct forward
and to the right of the spar to get a proper look at it. Other mechanics may feel that
they can get a proper look without doing that. I did have the opportunity to observe
the mechanics at Goodyear Arizona doing the inspection about a year after the first AD
came out and they were very thorough. They opened the airplane up more than I did.
I don’t feel that this is a serious safety problem. I think the cracks would have to develop
to a point where they would be glaring at you with even a casual inspection before they
became dangerous.
It is the same with the spar inspection of the straight 35’s. To my knowledge, of the
some seventeen cracks that were found where the bottom tubing was cracked completely
through, only one resulted in wing seperation and that one was doing a buzz job on a
hot turbulent summer day, was over gross with four people on board and did a sharp
pull up at the end when the wing finally let go.
All Bonanzas are safe when PROPERLY MAINTAINED and adequately inspected.
The problem with an older airplane is the difficulty of knowing what has happened to
it in the last fifty years. I’m not sure the bad ones could be brought up to standard
regardless of the time and money spent.
’nough rambling
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970521 091459 msg00916.tex]

1185
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Speed Mods
Wed, 18 Feb 1998 10:13:00

Good Morning All,

In a message dated 98-02-18 09:27:17 EST, Tom Turner wrote:

I agree with Chris, that turbocharging provides the greatest opportunity

for airspeed improvement with a normally aspirated airplane.

May I add my agreement with the proviso that the aircraft be properly rigged first.
The thing that has surprised me by it’s absence from this discussion is reference to Mike
Smiths very successful speed enhancement program.
He found that with most any Bonanza he would pick up between 10 and 20 mph with
his modifications. The single most effective move and the one that gained the most
dramatic improvement was careful rerigging of the airplane. He told me once that it
was not uncommon to find one straight from the factory on which he could pick up 12
mph by rigging alone!
The next move was to take everything off the top of the airplane. No scoops, antennas,
rotating beacons or anything else allowed. He even stuck the comm antenna inside his
plastic tailcone on some airplanes. In that position it had horizontal orientation and a
lousy ground plane and as we all know should not work well at all. I have spoken to
several owners and been told that it seems to work OK whether it should or not.
He went to strobes instead of rotating beacons, put the ELT antenna inside the airplane
by the rear windows, used blades on the tail for the nav units, built an airscoop into the
left rear fuselage inspection plate and other such mods to eliminate drag.
There were also changes to the tail cone, gap strips and later on, modifications to the
cowl inlets.
The biggest move though, was simply proper rigging.
Someone else has said, and I agree, that one experiment is worth a thousand theories, but
having said that, I still think there is at least five mph and probably ten available inside
the engine cowl by rebaffling and modification to the cowl flaps, inlets and eliminating
the side gills.
I would think that in the long run, turbocharging and improvements in the baffling
would be the most productive. I, for one, am anxious to see George’s results on the
baffling.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980218 101300 msg00983.tex]

1186
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Speed Mods
Wed, 18 Feb 1998 12:25:32

Good Morning Skip,

In a message dated 98-02-18 11:07:47 EST, you write:

Do you know of anybody that has direct knowledge or experience in Smith’s

work that could do the rigging?

Unfortunately I do not. The last time I spoke to Mike Smith was about a year after the
Reno ABS convention. I was trying to talk him into working on my airplane which is
badly out of rig. He told me that he had sold the rights to his rigging expertise to Allen
Peterson (A.K.A. BDS) with an agreement that Mike would go down to Texas for three
to six months and teach Allen’s people how to do what he had been doing. At the time
of that conversation, Allen had never called him to Texas!
Harry Bennet has done a fair amount of messing around with the rigging on his airplane
and has been rather successful but I don’t know of anyone who is really into it like Mike
was.
The wrenches are very expensive and it is best if cradles are available for moving and
supporting the wings while adjustments are being made.
Unfortunately I have to run right now. Maybe we can continue this later?
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980218 122532 msg00988.tex]

1187
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Speed Mods
Thu, 19 Feb 1998 10:28:38

Good Morning All,

Just a couple of more old thoughts on speed. First the disclaimer! I don’t know if the
following is correct or not, just something that I read or heard along the way.
I have been told that an air leak in the door or a window is roughly equivalent to sticking
a solid rod or plate out into the airstream six inches perpendicular to a leak. That is, a
one quarter inch diameter leak would have the same effect as one quarter inch diameter
steel rod protruding six inches from the side of your airplane.
Any protuberance ahead of or at the point of maximum thickness supposedly causes a
lot more drag than one further down stream. This would seem to indicate that a poorly
sealed door on our favorite airplane could be a major drag producer.
I was at Sun n’ Fun the year that Wayne Collins dusted the field with his IO-550 powered
V35B in the stock airplane races and one of the things he did was tape over every hole
in the airplane that didn’t absolutely have to be open, air vents and all. He even had
his crew tape the main cabin door seams after he was in.
He proudly showed to all his $1.95 speed mod, a roll of packing tape!
Some people feel that our big baggage doors on the later airplanes are drag producers
for the same reason. A lot of them don’t seal all that well but at least they are behind
the area of maximum drag. (Wayne had that taped up)
Gotta run!
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980219 102838 msg01013.tex]

1188
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Speed Mods
Thu, 9 Jul 1998 21:30:25

Good Evening Paul Bruce,

In a message dated 98-07-09 19:25:21 EDT, you write:

Is it me or does Roy seem to be REAL PROUD of his stuff?

The stuff is a little pricey, isn’t it?

When Roy sent his letter to Beech owners concerning the cowl mods, I gave him a call to
see what area he was working on. As I understood his proposal, it would have included
a prop shaft extension and a new fiberglass cowling which would have radically changed
the looks of our favorite machine. I inquired as to what changes he planned inside the
cowling and was told that plans for that area had not yet been developed.
It is my feeling that most of us don’t want drastic cosmetic changes on the Bonanza.
The speed increase would have to be quite dramatic to get me to accept a new fiberglass
nose on my airplane.
I feel that there is somewhere in the vicinity of ten mph to be gained inside the cowling
by redirection and smoothing of the airflow. I would hope that could be done by minor
modification of the existing Beech air inlets and some modification of the cowl flaps.
The majority of the changes would be inside where we couldn’t see them.
It is probably wishful thinking and a dreamers hope on my part but I am looking forward
to George Bralys modifications with great expectations.
I have been told by many cooling airflow experts over the years that the standard bafffling
is among the worst in the industry and wasn’t even very good by 1946 standards. It
did the job adequately with the 165 HP engine but hasn’t been substantially modified
since.
Brand ”C” did a cooling cleanup on the 172 many years ago where they picked up 7
mph with no external changes at all!
Surely a well trained engineer could find 10 mph on the Bonanza.
Our cowl flaps are very inefficient. If they could be made to have a greater control from
full open to full closed, we could eliminate the gill louvers and still be able to keep the
engine warm at low power settings.
It has been done on other airplanes.
The present cooling arrangement was put together just 42 years after the Wright brothers
got theirs going. I would think the ensuing 53 years should have provided considerable
knowledge which might be applied to the Bonanza.
Happy Skies,

1189
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator

[ARTICLES/19980709 213025 msg03565.tex]

1190
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Speed Mods
Fri, 10 Jul 1998 08:12:35

Good Morning John,

In a message dated 98-07-10 07:01:42 EDT, you write:

I must assume that Roy doesn’t have the funds to pilot new projects so he
relies on those who are interested in his work to do the funding for him.
My question would be ” what do I get after I do the testing for you? Roy
still owns the STC.

I would imagine that is a large part of the reason, but I would also assume that the
”interested party” investor serves as a means to determine the extent of the market.
I have been bugging him for several years to turn his magic talents loose on the Bonanza
and I am sure he has had that request from many others. From what I have been able
to find out, he had a very small response from we Beech owners to the letter he sent
out.
Sort of a ”put your money where your mouth is” situation and evidentally we didn’t
respond too well!
I don’t have any inside information and the only contact that I have had since shortly
after the original query went out, was the young lad with whom I spoke at Sun ’n Fun.
Possibly there is some activity that he either didn’t know about or didn’t feel free to
discuss.
I have been checking the LoPresti web site periodically and nothing has shown up there
either.
Do any of you know of anyone who took Roy up on his development offer?
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980710 081235 msg03574.tex]

1191
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Speed Mods
Sat, 3 Apr 1999 12:16:02

In a message dated 4/3/99 10:25:52 AM Central Standard Time, mruthven@impact-

consult.com writes:

Does anyone know what happened to the supposedly-very-effective Mike

Smith Bonanza speed mods. I know he’s been out of business for quite
a while, but if the mods were so effective I would think they would be
available from some source. ???
Mick Ruthven

Good Morning Mick,

Mike sold all of the rights and data to BDS. Part of the agreement was for Mike to come
down to Texas for a few months to train some of Al Peterson’s (BDS) folks on how to
go about making the Bonanza faster. The last time I spoke to Mike about it was shortly
after the ABS convention that was held in Reno, NV, I have forgotten the year.
I don’t believe the trip to Texas ever occurred and am reasonably confident the Al still
owns all of the stuff.
Most of what Mike did involved rigging and flight testing.
He also made a point of cleaning everything possible off the top of the airplane. He felt
that was the high drag area.
I have been gone for a couple of weeks and when I started to read the 307 messages that
were waiting for me on my return, I noted that there were several comments concerning
the removal of the rams horn antenna.
Since I have written on that subject often, it appears that there must be an awful lot of
folks who just automatically delete anything I send, but I will repeat again that which
I have sent many times.
One of the changes that Mike Smith used was to remove the factory style rams horn
and replace it with a set of blades on the tail. He stated that he had done a lot of flight
testing and determined that the lowest drag position was between the last and the next
to the last bulkheads with the antenna oriented NOT in level flight position but with
the blades parallel to the bottom of the fuselage and approximately three and one half
inches above the bottom.
The blades are used for both VHF Nav and Glide Slope.
Mike used a comm antenna mounted horizontally in a plastic tail cone of his design.
While I think any electronics person will tell you that is a lousy installation, insufficient
ground plane and improper polarization, I have spoken to several pilots who have the
installation and report no communication difficulties.

1192
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

I did put the blades on my airplane in the position he recommended, but have never
had the guts to try the horizontal tail mounted comm antenna.
He also removed the new style cabin air inlet from the top and relocated it in the
inspection plate that is located on the aft left side of the fuselage using an NACA style
inlet.
There was a new nose bowl also but that was just before he gave up the business and
not too many are around.
I think most of Mike’s successes were do to careful attention to detail and eliminating
protuberances from the airframe.
For what it’s worth!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990403 121602 msg03542.tex]

1193
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Stiff Cowl Flaps

Tue, 11 May 1999 08:51:36

In a message dated 5/10/99 4:01:44 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I bet there are a lot of Bonanzas with difficult to operate cowl flaps - I have
this problem too. Steve.

Good Morning Steve,

I suppose the determination as to whether the cowl flaps are difficult to operate or not
is a very subjective thing.
They will always be somewhat stiffer with the gear up than with the gear down. Since
the door actuator shaft rides on the cowl flap cross shaft, the tighter the nose gear doors
are rigged, the more pressure will be on the cowl flap shaft.
If the units are properly lubricated and the shafts are not bent, the cowl flaps are
generally no more than a little stiff (once again, a subjective evaluation). Bob Briggs
mentions that his are difficult to open above 140 knots indicated. To tell you the truth,
I can’t remember ever trying to open them when I was going that fast!
The main problem appears to be that the shafts are often bent and that is difficult to
check without pulling the assembly. In addition, they are often in need of lubrication.
If the cowl flaps are VERY hard to operate (subjective again), it is likely that the nose
gear door actuator pin has ridden up on the top of the actuator fork.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990511 085136 msg04514.tex]

1194
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Strut Inflation
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:07:12

In a message dated 8/21/00 11:45:31 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Of course, right above that statement it says to inflate the strut to approx-
imately 100 psi air pressure. That’s when i got oil in my air tank. So l
guess you pays your money and take your pick.

Good Morning Rudy,

This is just a comment, not a recommendation! Back in the olden days when I was
operating and maintaining my straight 35s, I always inflated the struts as the manual
then suggested. That is, service the strut as described before with fluid, let it set
overnight with no pressure, recheck for proper fluid quantity, then extend the strut fully
and inflate with shop air to one hundred pounds. After a couple of days of operation they
would generally need a little adjustment of the air to get just the right strut extension,
but the one hundred pounds on the extended strut came pretty close. I have tried that
on the later airplanes and one hundred pounds is not enough. Not only that, it is now
politically incorrect to use air! All the big boys say to use nitrogen. Seemed to work
OK with the air, but who knows??
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS I have your ”Bonanzas to Oshkosh” name tag. Should I send it to you or wait till
we get together? Sorry you didn’t make Telemark, it was one of our best flyins ever!
[ARTICLES/20000822 100712 msg12410.tex]

1195
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Test Flights
Thu, 2 Mar 2000 16:32:41

In a message dated 3/2/00 2:01:56 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

The guy that owns the flight school on the field related that they had a
Bonanza painted at Murmer and when he took it up for a flight test, the
elevator trim was hooked up backwards. He about broke his arm trying to
hold back pressure (or forward pressure, I don’t remember which) in order
to get around the pattern and back on the ground.

Good Afternoon WHP,

I do not in any way intend to excuse any faulty maintenance performance on the part
of any mechanic, but I am a little disappointed that the pilot who performed the test
flight following the maintenance procedure did not check the proper movement of any
control surface that had been disconnected.
I think we are all aware that the most likely time to have a problem is immediately
following maintenance. That is why test hops are performed.
On the airline for whom I flew, there was a mandatory test hop any time any control
surface was disconnected for any reason. While I had great confidence in the quality of
maintenance provided, I still made it a practice to have another crew member observe
the proper movement of the affected control surface before I made those test hops.
I don’t know how familiar your friend was with the Bonanza, but if my airplane was
so far out of trim during the takeoff roll that it would be difficult to control in flight, I
think I would have recognized it long before attaining a speed too fast to abort. Every
time I forget to set the trim properly before takeoff, the old Bonanza tells me about it
by the time I have the throttle open! Beyond that, if an effort to trim the airplane made
things worse, I don’t think it would take a rocket scientist to try trimming it the other
way, especially on a flight that was being conducted to test the functions of the aircraft
following maintenance of the control surfaces!
In any case, I would think that if any blame is to be placed, the pilot performing the
test hop was at least a weak link in the chain.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000302 163241 msg04073.tex]

1196
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Tires - Balancing
Mon, 4 May 1998 19:54:50

Good Evening Glenn Humann,

In a message dated 98-05-04 13:25:58 EDT, you write:

Were your tubes and tires properly mounted before taking them to a mo-
torcycle shop for further balancing (or corrective balancing)?

Many people feel that the only way to properly balance a small aircraft tire assembly is
to put the weights inside the tire between the tire and the tube. This entails balancing
the unit with the weights taped to the exterior of the tread and then breaking down the
wheel and putting the weights inside. Quite a tedious process. Weights applied to the
small hubs we tend to use are not very satisfactory. I agree that if the tube and tire
are positioned properly, further balancing should rarely be necessary on the Bonanza
assembly.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980504 195450 msg02257.tex]

1197
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Torque Wrenches Types

Wed, 5 May 1999 09:22:19

In a message dated 5/5/99 7:13:21 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

But I admit, most of us (non-A&Ps) don’t have access to a torque wrench

calibration device, and probably have no idea just how off (if any) our
torque wrenches are–especially the micrometer ”click” types. If I remember
correctly, that 3/8” Craftsman wrench was off only by a foot pound or so
in just a part of the operating range.

Good Morning Earl,

How true!
Some where in my horribly unorganized files, I have a copy of a report on the scatter of
various types of torque wrenches.
The absolute worst of the bunch are the micrometer adjustment ”click” wrenches! They
not only have the worst consistency, they also go off calibration the fastest.
The ones with dial indicators are the next worst, the better ones are the round beam or
bar types such as most Craftsman wrenches and the ones with the least scatter are the
pure flat ground beam types.
The report, that I can’t find, stated that the most consistent numbers were those devel-
oped by a mechanic doing repetitive tightening on the same assembly day after day and
using the feel developed with no torque wrench at all!
We must remember that the torque numbers we use are those that are developed by the
engineers which will give the required preload to the device we are fastening within very
specific conditions of application.
The condition, size and fit of the threads, the lubrication or lack thereof, the squareness
of the pieces to be joined, the material from which they are made and, I am sure, a
multitude of other factors must be added to the equation to determine how much twist
we need to apply to gain the desired preload of the fastener. It is that preload that
is important and thus the requirement to measure elongation in those fasteners where
staying together is critical.
The conditions must be identical to those under which the torque numbers were devel-
oped to attain the same results.
Remember, the torque numbers are only given to aid we who do not have the capability
of checking the preload directly!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob

1198
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

PS Many of us who are not (non-A&Ps) don’t have good calibration capability available
either!
[ARTICLES/19990505 092219 msg04339.tex]

1199
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Upgrade Practacality
Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:03:05

In a message dated 11/3/99 7:47:01 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

It seems to me many mods fall into this catagory. Large baggage door, panel
upgrade (nonetheless justifiable popular) and moving the rear bulkhead
back come to mind easily. However, after going through a lot of hassle
catching up the maintenance on my P35 I can understand why one would
choose such a course of action from the heart.

Good Evening John,

Well put!
I don’t fly my airplane because it is economically practical. I fly it for the pleasure I
receive from operating it. I don’t fly places because I want to get there. I fly because of
the enjoyment of the flight.
If rational thought was involved, I would ride an airliner and let others do the flying.
I could save money which would go to my children. My preference is to spend my
children’s inheritance.
We are fortunate that we have the capability to make our decisions with the freedom
we do!
Life Is Good!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991103 210305 msg10109.tex]

1200
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Verneer Control Tension Adjustment

Fri, 11 Feb 2000 12:38:00

In a message dated 2/11/00 11:24:06 AM Central Standard Time, beech [email protected]

writes:

Bill, are you saying that there’s no knurled nut at the front of the panel to
tighten? I thought they all have some type of friction adjustment. I had
the same problem with a prop control but it was an easy adjustment to
make.
— Bill McCune [email protected] wrote: I have a vernier mixture control
that walks from any lean setting to 10.5 psi in cruise.
No gland nut at the base to tighten..

Good Morning John and Bill,

Most of the verniers used on the Bonanza series have a leather washer for tension adjust-
ment. You loosen the nut behind the instrument panel (toward the front of the airplane
that is!), then tighten the knurled nut on your side of the panel. Usually works just fine.
I suppose it is possible that one of the washers may wear out, but I have never found
one that wouldn’t tighten.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000211 123800 msg02764.tex]

1201
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Vibration
Thu, 2 Apr 1998 22:53:41

Good Evening All,

In a message dated 98-04-02 22:43:39 EST, George Braly wrote:

BUT, I have paid a lot of attention to making sure that there was nothing
that was coupling up the airframe to the engine. This can be as simple
as an a flexible hose that is too short or an exhaust pipe that is touching
something or even baffling that is not flexible enough and is coupling engine
vibration into the airframe.

One similar problem is some well meaning mechanics will gather together numerous
Ahrends controls, tubes and hoses etc. and tie-wrap them all together thus providing
a solid connection which will transmit vibration to the airframe. There needs to be a
much freedom as practical of the engine from the airframe.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980402 225341 msg01801.tex]

1202
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Water in Static System

Tue, 6 Feb 2001 08:21:27

In a message dated 2/6/01 6:43:31 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Ernie: I would imagine it could happen at cruise speeds with the pressure
differential involved, and simply, ram air....just a thought...

Good Morning Paul,

It just doesn’t happen that way. I doubt if any airplane flies a higher percentage of it’s
flight time in heavy rain than does mine. I have never had a problem with water in the
static system.
On top of that, if the vents are properly located, there should be no differential pressure,
that is why we have the static system!
If you aim a water hose at the vent while washing the airplane and hold it there for a
while, I suppose some could get in, but even that doesn’t seem to happen. I have always
covered mine with tape when I use a high pressure hose for washing, but a little care
should do just as well.
I have flown airplanes where the static vents iced over. That can be a problem, but
it has never happened to me in a Bonanza and I have had a lot of experience with a
Bonanza in ice. The Beech supplied system is a good one.
The static system should be checked and drained at the recommended inspection times,
but I don’t think it needs to be an everyday item. Flame away all of you who feel
otherwise!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010206 082127 msg02902.tex]

1203
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Weighing Accuracy/Tip Tanks

Wed, 6 Dec 2000 10:40:39

In a message dated 12/6/00 8:19:15 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Jeb:
Osborne tips will give you an increase to 3500# gross, not to mention
adding 2.5 hours of range. You could do that at the same time you have
the turbonormalizer installed. g
– Tom

Good Morning Jeb and Tom,

The BDS tip tanks might be better, depending on the use made of the aircraft. Osbornes
will carry more fuel, but the BDS tip tank approval may allow a higher gross.
I have not monitored the approval status for the Debonair series as close as I have for
the Bonanzas, but the S model, which normally has a gross of 3300 pounds, gains 250
pounds when the BDS tanks are installed, provided it has the wheels and tires that are
specified.
That would mean you could have a 3550 gross, but would only pick up thirty gallons of
extra fuel instead of forty.
While we are on the subject of weight, I would be highly suspect of that 1888 Empty
Weight.
We had a 1968 V35A on which we installed Brittain (predecessor of Osborne) tip tanks.
That combination allowed a gross of 3600 pounds, but the empty weight was around
2124 for a useful of 1476 or thereabouts.
That was a calculated weight, not one derived from an accurate weighing.
The airplane had dual NavComs, ADF, etc., but had only a wingleveler, not a full
autopilot.
While all factory weights are of a minimally equipped aircraft, (i.e., one NavCom, no
long range tanks, autopilot, rotating beacon or other options) even those weights tend
to be suspect. I have never found one that was not at least a few pounds heavier than
the factory weights.
Now, having said that, I also feel that most of the weighing of light aircraft are done in
a manner that leads to very inaccurate weights.
The last time I weighed one, I borrowed a set of electronic truck scales. The directions
with those scales stated that the accuracy was approximately plus or minus two percent.
That means that regardless of how diligently I worked to find an accurate weight, the

1204
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

range of that weight could easily be almost one hundred pounds. Two percent of 2300
equals 46 pounds. The weight would be between 2254 and 2346.
I have been shopping for something more accurate. Devices with greater accuracy have
been quoted to me at 5 to 6 thousand dollars. One of the salesmen I contacted tried
to convince me that it was a good investment, as he knew of many shops which were
charging $750 to do a weighing of a light aircraft. Too rich for me, but I can understand
why the charge would be that high if it is necessary to pay that much money for a scale
accurate to one-tenth of one percent.
One-tenth of one percent would allow an error of 2.3 pounds on that 2300 pound airframe
for a range of 4.6 pounds between 2297.7 and 2302.3. That is an accuracy I could live
with. 2254 to 2346 is not acceptable to me.
Many shops fill the fuel tanks for the weighing and then subtract the weight of the fuel.
That adds error due to the variable weight of the fuel, the need to use a different CG
for the fuel and the different amount of fuel held by different airplanes.
The weighing of aircraft is not often done to the same degree of precision with which we
use the resulting weights!
But, I have once again rambled far beyond the subject at hand. I would expect the
Debbie in question to have an empty weight around 2100 pounds if equipped with a
full electronic package and three axis autopilot. If it has been repainted and/or has an
aftermarket interior, it could be a lot heavier!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001206 104039 msg17245.tex]

1205
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Wood Flooring
Fri, 14 May 1999 09:47:48

In a message dated 5/14/99 7:38:57 AM Central Daylight Time, flyboy [email protected]

writes:

Does anyone know what kind of wood Beech used for the floorboards on
the mid-fifties 35 series? I want to replace mine as they are cracked and
peeling. Any other info, like thicknesses, varnishes, etc. would also be
appreciated.

Good Morning Jason,

The stuff Beech used was a relatively low grade fir plywood. Definitely not what we
have come to call ”aircraft grade” plywood though that term generally refers to wood
to be used for structural purposes. I always felt that the floorboards used by Beech
were of a slightly lower quality than that used by Piper which surprised me at the time.
Remember, that is a very subjective opinion and I did not check the specifications of
either!
Remember also that Beech was making an extreme effort to make the airplane as light
as possible and it could be that the wood was a better grade than I give them credit
for, but met the light weight criteria at the minimum strength they required for the
installation.
I have used ”aircraft grade” birch faced 1/4 inch plywood to build replacement floor
boards with aircraft grade clear spruce used for the re-enforcement strips where required.
They are a lot stiffer and stronger than the originals but a full replacement of all of the
boards will add two or more pounds to the weight of the aircraft. It should be listed in
the paperwork.
I like to finish them with a good grade of marine spar varnish. There are probably more
modern finishes available, but I like the way spar varnish works and looks.
Some folks have used the new space age composite materials as replacement floor boards.
That should help with the soundproofing and might well be lighter.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990514 094748 msg04649.tex]

1206
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Working with the Shop

Sun, 18 Mar 2001 08:14:48

In a message dated 3/17/01 3:24:17 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Also, I have seen the cases where the customer brings the plane in, says he
wants only the XXX replaced, cuz it’s ”bad”, and we find it is a completely
different or substantially more complex problem. That’s what I’m basing
my opinion on, I guess....
Ole Bob, I value your opinion greatly... what are your feelings on this
subject, am I over-reacting?

Good Morning Paul,

There has been considerable discussion on this thread since I last checked my E-mail!
The subject was well covered, but since you asked, I will comment.
I don’t think you over-reacted. You obviously feel responsible for the general safety of our
industry and have a strong consideration concerning the costs involved in maintaining
an aircraft in airworthy condition.
I believe the best comment was the one from Howard, It Depends!
If the person doing the maintenance and the operator of the aircraft have a broad
knowledge of each others capabilities, it makes the trouble shooting much easier, but it
could also lead to the situation such as occurred when the gauge was replaced without
trouble shooting on the part of the maintenance personnel.
If a friend, who I know to be an excellent mechanic, pulls up to my shop and tells me the
right generator needs to be replaced and he doesn’t have time to do it, I would probably
replace the generator without question.
In most cases, I would hope we can at least have a discussion as to why he thinks the
generator should be replaced, but I wouldn’t argue if he insisted.
The better method for both is to take advantage of the other person’s area of expertise.
In the days when I was gainfully employed, it was considered best if the pilot would
write up all of the symptoms he/she observed and allow the maintenance personnel to
do the trouble shooting.
In general, the pilot didn’t know the mechanic and the mechanic didn’t know the pilot.
Both had to do their job and allow the other to do theirs.
On rare occasions, the maintenance personnel would contact the pilot for further data.
We, in general aviation, often have a much closer relationship with those for whom we
do maintenance. It allows us to do a much better job for both, IF we take the time to

1207
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

communicate and respect each others area of responsibility.

Great topic for our forum!
Thanks,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010318 081448 msg06114.tex]

1208
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Yoke Orientation
Fri, 13 Jun 1997 21:37:31

To Dennis Wolf
The earlier airplanes had two positions for the single column and no adjusment for
the seat. The rudder pedal adjustments and the up or down position was all of the
accommodation available to short leg or long leggers etc. If you felt most comfortable
with the single unit in the up position the dual column was installed with the wheels
high. If you liked the single unit in the bottom position, it was installed with the ”v”
upside down. I don’t recall the factory specifiying a position in the ”good old days” but
they may have more recently.
Whatever works!!
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970613 213731 msg01144.tex]

1209
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Magnesium Ruddervators
Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:40:04

In a message dated 4/18/00 10:46:09 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

How much trouble would I get into if I offered stronger, lighter, carbon
fiber ruddervators to the fleet? At, say, 3 x the current cost- with a lifetime
warranty against corrosion and cracks?
Cheers!
Bill

Good Morning Bill,

A couple of years ago, when the current difficulties with the tail surfaces on the early
airplanes became apparent, I suggested that thought be given to using aluminum framed,
fabric covered surfaces such as had been used by Beech on the preproduction aircraft.
I was informed by Willis Hawkins that the magnesium units provide greater stiffness
and strength at a lighter weight than the ones that I envisioned.
If you could provide a surface with greater stiffness, lighter weight, the ability to be
balanced using the same or less weight than the original Beech specifications, FAA
certificated and at a price no more than three times the factory units, I believe you
would find a ready and eager market!
Unfortunately, most folks seem to have a hard time getting anything certificated by the
FAA, let alone a new set of tailfeathers for our beloved ”forked tail doctor killers.”
But! I am an old man and tend to become discouraged easily. Hey, I never thought I
would see a set of balanced fuel injectors approved!
Go for it!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000418 124004 msg06630.tex]

1210
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.8. MAINT-MISC

Main Gear Strut Rebuilding

Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:40:14

From: Jason Beall flyboy [email protected]

Evening all,
My right main gear strut keeps leaking nitrogen. It slowly looses air over
a period of a few days. It looses it more rapidly when I land on it. I have
replaced the valve core and added fluid as per the service manual. Still, no
luck. No visible fluid leakage. Any ideas? Do I need to rebuild it, or just
replace the entire valve assembly up top?
Anyone have a source to get a complete strut rebuild kit?
Thanks,
Jason
Good Afternoon Jason,
There is something that might be worth a try.
I normally try to avoid ”mouse milk” remedies but there is one that I have used and
found worthwhile!
Granville Strut Seal has done the job for me on occasion. I was first introduced to it
while on a trip a long way from home with a leaking strut problem. It was suggested
by a local mechanic and I figured if it could get me home it would be worth a try.
Well, just like in the ad, the strut was leak free for a couple of thousand hours!
Might work for you too!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991110 134014 msg10441.tex]

1211
7.8. MAINT-MISC CHAPTER 7. MAINT

weight and balance

Sun, 22 Nov 1998 21:04:03

Good Evening Russ,

n a message dated 11/22/98 6:41:57 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

My problem is that in our V35B, I’m 150# and my copilot (also a pilot) is
105#. Cannot put two standard 175# ea. people in the rear seats without
maintaining lots of fuel.
Russ Gunnard

It is unfortunate that a lot of V-tails have a CG much further aft than is necessary.
There definitely is a problem, but the problem is often made worse by the effort of many
shops to take the easiest way to install electronics instead of the best way. An effort
should be made to locate the equipment to greatest advantage for the loading of the
airplane.
As an example, when I purchased my present V35B, the compass for the HSI, the 12/24
volt converter for the transponder and the Stormscope amplifier were all mounted aft of
the rear shear web.
I moved them all up to the equipment shelf next to the firewall and that made a sub-
stantial improvement in CG location. As new equipment was added, everything that
could possibly mounted forward, was mounted forward.
Check your airplane and see if it’s CG can’t be improved by some relocation of equip-
ment.
I have also found some gross errors in math on weight and balance forms. It isn’t that
difficult to dig out the original factory WT and Balance forms and run a current one
based on current equipment. You may find that things are not as bad as you thought!
The worst case situation is with the installation of autopilot and yaw damper servos.
They pretty well have to go toward the rear and in some cases, compensating weights
should be installed forward.
A V35B with four standard FAA type 170 pound people in the forward and middle rows
of seats should be about a half inch within the envelope even with empty tanks. If yours
won’t fit that description, either the math is wrong or someone has done a lousy job of
installing optional equipment.
Check it out!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981122 210403 msg07130.tex]

1212
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.9. MAINT-PARTS

7.9 MAINT-PARTS

1213
7.9. MAINT-PARTS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Aileron Bearing Rod Ends

Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:14:05

In a message dated 3/2/00 5:43:04 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Could somebody peek in their parts book and tell me what the part number
is? Especially appreciated if you can cross referance the Beech part number
to a AN or MS number. Want to buy new, but would prefer not to pay
Raytheons prices.

Good Evening Frank,

I don’t have the parts book for the A35 readily available, but if you don’t get an answer
in a day or so, let me know and I will get the manual back from my son and look it up!!
I would like to issue a caution though. Some of the rod ends used on the various
Beechcraft components may have standard Heim end, MS or AN numbers visible and
yet not be the same as production off the shelf units. Beech sometimes modifies them
for specific purposes and puts their own part number on the modified part. An effort to
force the unmodified rod end into a spot machined to accept the Beech modified fitting
could cause considerable damage to the component.
Unfortunately, it really isn’t legal to use the generic part unless Beech calls it out that
way. If it has a Beech part number, that is what should be used to be legit. Should you
decide to use the generic part, and I am not suggesting that you do, be sure to check it
carefully to assure that all dimensions are the same as the one you remove.
Let me know if you need me to get that early parts book!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000302 191405 msg04080.tex]

1214
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.9. MAINT-PARTS

Aileron Bearing Rod Ends

Thu, 2 Mar 2000 20:29:42

In a message dated 3/2/00 6:37:43 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

So if I understand correctly, if it has an Beech number stamped on it in

addition to an AN or MS number, then it is a Beech specific

Hi Frank,
Not always, but it may be! In some cases, Beech just does a magnetic inspection or
other procedure which they feel is required to assure the quality they desire. I wouldn’t
be surprised if little or nothing is done but increase the price, but it is hard to be sure
when that is the case.
The Clevis bolts which attach the trim cables to the trim tabs were supposed to be
purchased from Beech or be magnetically checked by an aviation qualified shop such as
a prop shop, but I think that has recently been changed to allow generic AN parts.
Even wheel bearings are supposed to be purchased from Beech, but I wonder how many
are?
I have found some of the modified rod ends though, so you must be careful!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000302 202942 msg04093.tex]

1215
7.9. MAINT-PARTS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Aileron Bearing Rod Ends

Thu, 2 Mar 2000 20:38:07

In a message dated 3/2/00 6:58:55 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

If I recall correctly (and please correct me if I am wrong) the rod end for
the recent ruddervator actuator rod AD is an example of a Beech modified
one where the standard part could not be used.
Howard

Good Evening Howard,

That is true! The face of the ball was ground down .015 of an inch. Unfortunately some
full size generic ones were driven into place which bent the machined arms. Not good
at all!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000302 203807 msg04095.tex]

1216
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.9. MAINT-PARTS

Ruddervator Rod Ends

Thu, 2 Mar 2000 22:12:23

In a message dated 3/2/00 8:18:37 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

You can still use the Heim MD46-15 provided you seal the passage and
reidentify the unit.

Good Evening Jim,

I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. I also don’t have the AD handy so
I am not sure if the rod ends are the same for all of the airplanes or not, though I think
they are all of the same dimension across the face of the ball. The unmodified generic
Heim end has a dimension across the faces of the ball of .498 or .499. After Beech grinds
them down, they will measure .484 or so. I don’t know what the precise tolerance is.
The position in the fork into which the rod end fits measures around .485 to .486. In
order to put the unmodified generic Heim end into the fork, it must be forced or driven
hard enough to make up at least .012 of an inch. The fork would have to be bent a
considerable amount to make it fit.
I just went out to the shop to check on the dimensions and found a stock unmodified
generic Heim end identical to the spare one I obtained from Beech and it measures .4985.
The one from Raytheon measures .484 and shows the tell tale grind marks
The modification of the Heim end by either sealing the end or not having the shank
drilled as directed by the AD is a different operation than the one required to face off
the sides of the ball to allow them to fit in the fork.
Since both sides of the Beech supplied rod ends show evidence of having been ground
and the stock Heim ends do not, I am assuming that about .0075 inches are taken off of
each side to attain the required dimension of .485 or a little less.
Why Beech decided to build them that way is beyond me. I would guess that they
were able to buy a large number of the modified Heim ends surplus and made the fork
components to fit the modified Heim ends, but that is pure speculation.
In any case, purchasing a generic Heim end and filling the shaft end will not allow it to
be used for the ruddervator. It must be ground down to the .485 dimension to fit in the
ruddervator forks. The rod ends that were in the airplane can be filled with the sealant
and reused if they are in satisfactory condition.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000302 221223 msg04104.tex]

1217
7.9. MAINT-PARTS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Ruddervator Rod Ends

Thu, 2 Mar 2000 23:09:06

In a message dated 3/2/00 8:18:37 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

You can still use the Heim MD46-15 provided you seal the passage and
reidentify the unit.

Good Evening Jim,

I think I owe you an apology. I just got out a magnifying glass and checked the number
of the Heim end that I measured and found to be .498 across the faces. It is a Heim
MD46-16. Could it be that the MD46-15 comes from the factory with a dimension of
.484?
I don’t have a Heim catalog to check. The ones that I received from Beech/Raytheon
do not say the name of the manufacturer and have no numbers similar to the Heim
numbers. Do you know if the -15 measures .484 or close to that?
Could be I jumped to a conclusion without adequate preflight!
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000302 230906 msg04110.tex]

1218
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.9. MAINT-PARTS

Ruddervator Rod Ends

Thu, 2 Mar 2000 23:24:48

In a message dated 3/2/00 10:02:16 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Copy all the info. But the units that were in the a/c were the standard
Heim MD46-15 and by simply filling them and reidentifying them, you may
reinstall them. If the deminsion was too great, the SB or SI or AD should
address the reduction, but they do not. When I modify the Rod End by
the SB, I reidentify it with the same p/n that is available form RAC, so it
follows that my modified MD46-15 becomes p/n 35-524106-9, the same p/n
that RAC sells. The parts manual shows the same Rod End(MD46-15) for
all models through V, but the rod p/n changes at K and subs. Jim N.

Good Evening Once Again Jim,

I think our notes crossed in the ether. I know that when I was doing the mods on
the pushrods, I either reused the existing ones or obtained new ones from Raytheon,
then filled and remarked them as did you. All of the Heim ends that I had in stock
measured at or close to .500 so I just bought replacements from Beech via their part
number. Tonight was the first time I got out a magnifying glass and managed to read
the numbers on the generic ones I had in stock. I’ll bet those -15s measure .484 the
same as the ones purchased from Raytheon.
Well, a day in which we learn nothing is a day wasted!
Thanks for the information.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000302 232448 msg04111.tex]

1219
7.9. MAINT-PARTS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Ruddervator Rod Ends

Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:45:47

In a message dated 3/3/00 7:58:03 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

looking at my Aircraft Spruce Cat. the MD46-15 has Ball width of .484
while the MD46-16 has a ball width of .5 and the price almost doubles!

Good Morning Cy,

I never even thought to look in the Aircraft Spruce catalog! My industrial catalogs show
nothing between a .375 and a .500 ball width.
Thanks. The secret is knowing what is available and, as always, you know where to
look!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000303 094547 msg04125.tex]

1220
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.9. MAINT-PARTS

Ruddervator Rod Ends

Sat, 4 Mar 2000 21:39:17

In a message dated 3/4/00 7:38:07 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

My parts manuals show no application for the MD46-16. By P/N this

should have a 3/8-24 shaft instead of the 5/16-24 of the MD45-X Jim N.

Good Evening Jim,

Things are getting more and more confusing!
Both the MD46-16 that I have in stock and the one that I have left from my Raytheon
order have 3/8-24 shafts. The only differences I can find are the measurements across
the ball and about a quarter of an inch difference in the length of the shaft. The Beech
one is longer. The picking tag is still attached to the Raytheon part and it lists the part
number as 131765-3M. My parts manual shows that the part number should be MD46-
15. I suppose that was superseded by 131765-3M. I find no listing for the MD45-X.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000304 213917 msg04189.tex]

1221
7.10. MAINT-PROP CHAPTER 7. MAINT

7.10 MAINT-PROP

1222
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.10. MAINT-PROP

Painting Propeller Tips

Sat, 24 Mar 2001 19:07:24

In a message dated 3/24/01 5:14:30 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

So: other than tradition, can you paint your prop tips (or the whole prop)
any way that you want to? Could you paint your entire prop day-glow
orange? chartreuse?
This is for fun, but let’s see what we have for opinions.
Pete Tracy Bishop, California

You can paint it any way you want, just so long as it maintains it’s balance.
There was a Cessna 140 that took Grand Champion at Oshkosh a few years ago that
had the prop painted the same soft beige trimmed in red as was the rest of the airplane.
Looked very nice.
I know that a lot of folks do polish their propellors, but it really shouldn’t be done. I
don’t know anything at all about metallurgy, but the really knowledgeable prop guys tell
me that even the best cared for polished prop is more prone to get microscopic corrosion
pits which can lead to a prop losing some portion of a blade and ruining your whole day.
Our local FSDO tells we IAs that we should not accept a polished prop as being airwor-
thy. Some are still doing it, but not all.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010324 190724 msg06500.tex]

1223
7.11. MAINT-REGS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

7.11 MAINT-REGS

1224
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.11. MAINT-REGS

Adlog
Tue, 10 Aug 1999 13:26:45

In a message dated 8/10/99 11:44:44 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Can any one speak about the adlogrecord keeping system for a Bonanza?
Is it worth $100 plus about $20/yr subscription?

Good Afternoon John,

Our youngest son has used their system with his Beech E18 for several years and has
been pleased with the service.
I used it before I subscribed to a full CD-ROM maintenance service and I think it is
a good reminder for the individual owner. Even if one is not directly involved in the
maintenance, the owner is the one who is responsible to see that it is done in a proper
and timely manner.
ADLOG helps with awareness of ADs, but doesn’t cover service bulletins or items that
need repetitive inspections, so maintenance of other records is required in addition to the
mailings from ADLOG. They do, however, provide a convenient method of keeping those
records. If you use their system completely, it becomes the log book for the aircraft. It
could save some time for your mechanic if you have maintained the records faithfully
and that should lead to a monetary saving at annual time.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990810 132645 msg06846.tex]

1225
7.11. MAINT-REGS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Adlog
Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:22:44

In a message dated 8/11/99 10:53:44 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Thanks ... could you compare this to adlog, both in terms of cost and
coverage?

Good Morning John,

I will try!
For Adlog, you supply them a list of your individual airplane, engine and components.
They will then send any ADs which may be, or become, applicable to your aircraft, etc.,
and at annual time, a summary of all that are due.
They also supply a large loose leaf book which, if used, will become your logbook.
It is primarily a record keeping system, somewhat like an office organizer that many
people use, combined with notification of any ADs that are issued for your aircraft and
any of it’s listed components.
You are probably already receiving all of the ADs that apply to your airplane and engine.
The advantage of the Adlog system is they will supply ADs that apply to oddball little
aftermarket components such as the inflatable door seal or pulselite type stuff, provided
you tell them they are on your airplane!
The CD-ROM systems contain all pertinent FARs, OpSpecs and sundry other items in
addition to ALL ADs that are, or ever have been, issued by the FAA. It complies with
the library requirement that applies to all persons exercising the privilege of Inspection
Authorization and a new disc is supplied each fourteen days. The one we have, has a
website where information may be obtained concerning things that come up between
publication dates. I imagine the other suppliers do the same.
There is a search capability, and provision for keeping records for individual aircraft as
well as a means of printing out all of the records and forms (such as 337s) required for
maintenance.
The CD-ROM systems are all around four to five hundred bucks a year. The Adlog is
just a few bucks a year, plus the single one time charge for the organizer material and
setting it up.
They are quite different animals designed for different purposes.
Does that help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob

1226
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.11. MAINT-REGS

[ARTICLES/19990812 082244 msg06880.tex]

1227
7.11. MAINT-REGS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Airworthiness and IA’s

Wed, 24 Mar 1999 09:23:20

In a message dated 3/24/99 5:25:12 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

So, the question remains, do I have the original shop sign off everything
but the tail and then have the ”second opinion” shop sign off the tail? I
can’t picture how that would work and can’t imagine either of them going
for it.

Good Morning Eric,

No, I think in this case you are pretty well stuck! Not necessarily by regulation, but by
circumstance.
Once the surgeon has made the cut, it is a little late to take advantage of a second and
contrary opinion.
There is a distinct hesitation among IAs to accept something on an annual inspection
that has already been listed as unairworthy by a fellow IA. The IA is required by
regulation to make a report of what he has found and, if it is his opinion that an item is
not airworthy, that information must be posted in the aircraft records for all the world
to see.
Even casual questioning, by you the owner, concerning the IA’s possible thought on the
airworthiness of a particular item on a particular airplane can lead to problems for the
IA if he tells you that an item is not airworthy without putting that information in the
aircraft records (thank the lawyers, read congressmen, for that)!
If you want to form an opinion of how the IA feels about a certain subject, it is possible
that the best approach is the one usually started by the phrase: ”I have a friend who
—.”
I have seen an IA take the responsibility of approving something that had been written
up as unairworthy when he felt the first IA was in a total ”rip off” mode. Remember
though, that such action puts him in a position ripe for potential litigation.
I have also seen cases where the owner has taken the questionable item to the FAA and
received an opinion that the item was airworthy.
I once knew a gentleman who had has his airplane declared unairworthy by an FAA
inspector. He obtained a ferry permit and flew it to the factory in Wichita where the
factory signed it off as airworthy. That was around 1960.
I doubt if either of those last two scenarios would play out today!
Get that second opinion early!
Happy Skies,

1228
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.11. MAINT-REGS

Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990324 092320 msg03268.tex]

1229
7.11. MAINT-REGS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

CD-ROM Maintenance Documentaion

Tue, 10 Aug 1999 19:07:09

In a message dated 8/10/99 4:29:43 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Would you care to elaborate on where you obtained your CD-ROM and
how it’s organised?
Thanks - Ron Koyich

Good Evening Ron,

I rather rushed through my earlier answer to you and didn’t list a lot of the things for
which I do use the disc. One of the handiest things is a full listing of the specs for all
light aircraft and engines.
There is also a fairly large list of STCs available, It is not complete, as I don’t think
even the FEDs have a complete handle on all of the STCs available and of course, there
are a lot listed that are no longer available. As I am sure you are aware, The FAA has
no way of knowing when someone goes out of business or just decides to quit messing
with the stuff!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990810 190709 msg06855.tex]

1230
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.11. MAINT-REGS

CD-ROM Maintenance Documentation

Tue, 10 Aug 1999 18:54:53

In a message dated 8/10/99 4:29:43 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Would you care to elaborate on where you obtained your CD-ROM and
how it’s organised?

Good Afternoon Ron,

I share Avantext, Inc. with another mechanic and it is in his name. They advertise
in Trade A Plane and Aviation Maintenance Technology. I think they also advertise
directly by mail to mechanics because we subscribed following an ad and trial disc that
I received via snail mail.
It is pitched as a complete FAA regulatory library and they send out a revision every
14 days the same as the AD schedule.
It qualifies as my required library for purposes of maintaining my Inspection Authoriza-
tion for everything except the manuals for the aircraft or component being maintained.
It does have all of the ADs and the service bulletins that are required to do the AD
along with all of the FARs and such. Lots and lots of stuff!
I have not learned to use all of it’s capabilities. I am a basic computer illiterate and I
am sure someone with a better knowledge than I could put it to much better use, but
it does make me legal. It is around $500 per year, cheaper if you pay two or three years
ahead.
Not cheap, but it takes up a lot less space than the old stuff did.
There are other competitive products available, but I haven’t researched any of them. I
tend to be creature of habit and don’t make many changes, just lazy I guess!
Address: Avantext, Inc. Green Hills Corporate Center 2675 Morgantown Road Suite
3300, Reading, PA 19607 USA
Website: www.avantext.com (I’ve never tried that, but it is listed on their CD)
Telephone: (800) 998-8857
Hope that helps!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990810 185453 msg06854.tex]

1231
7.11. MAINT-REGS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Ferry Permit
Thu, 11 May 2000 00:00:41

In a message dated 5/10/00 8:36:42 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Is it legal to get a hand-held portable tach and fly the airplane on a ferry
permit? Any problem with insurance? jm

Good Evening John,

If the airplane is being flown on a ferry permit, it is up to the mechanic who signs
the ferry permit to decide what is required for the flight. No tachometer or any other
instrument is required if the mechanic thinks it isn’t.
As to the insurance coverage, I would suggest that you contact the insurance company
to assure that the aircraft is properly covered. I have never been refused coverage or
charged anything for the ferry flight.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000511 000041 msg07987.tex]

1232
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.11. MAINT-REGS

Field Approval
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:39:08

In a message dated 1/29/01 9:55:26 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

I am hoping that only a logbook entry by an A&P is required, but I am

afraid I will need a 337 and field approval for the new 2 1/4” needle and
ball. I am getting conflicting opinions from 2 IA friends. I suppose I could
call the FAA, but ..

Good Morning Jim,

Welcome to the list!
The following is my opinion only, given freely and probably worth about what anyone
is likely to pay for it!
The need for a 337 is determined by the decision as to whether the change is a minor
alteration or a major alteration.
Since moving instruments around is not one of the things specifically listed as a major
alteration, the determination is left to the person doing the job.
If your ”A” licensed mechanic decides that it is a minor alteration, he/she can make a
logbook entry, put the airplane back in service and all is well.
But, if at annual time, the IA who inspects the airplane, decides that the change was
a major alteration, he/she will list it as a discrepancy and the airplane will not be
considered airworthy.
What if the IA agrees with the installing mechanic? He/she will sign it off and the
airplane is legal to go!
Now, let’s say that some FED sticks his/her nose in the airplane, somehow notes the
change, and asks about a 337. You and/or the affected maintenance folks explain that
it was considered a minor alteration. If the FED agrees, all is well, if he/she decides
that the change is major alteration, he/she has to decide whether or not a federal case
should be made and if he/she thinks that, their view will prevail, pending litigation.
If it goes to that stage, it is a Federal Case and, as we all know, no one can be certain
what the outcome will be.
The airplane will have been perfectly legal up until the time that the FAA person decided
that it wasn’t. The ”A” licensed mechanic had the authority, in fact the obligation, to
make the original decision. The same goes for the IA at annual time.
All of this potential hassle is the reason that most FAA personnel will tell you that if
there is any doubt at all as to whether a 337 should be filed, you should submit the
337. If it is completely obvious to the inspector that receives the file that a 337 is not
required, he/she will advise the submitter of that fact.

1233
7.11. MAINT-REGS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

If it were me making the change that you plan, I would leave the standby horizon where
it is, remove the Turn Coordinator, replace it with a full size Turn and Bank, put the
Davtron clock in the control wheel, replace the clock in the panel with the 2 1/4 inch
T&B, as you suggest, and make a log book entry.
Without rereading the functions allowed to be done by an owner/operator I am not at
all sure that the functions described could not be performed under the provisions of
allowable preventive maintenance on a part 91 airplane, but I would sign it off as an
Airframe licensed mechanic.
If the airplane was submitted to me for an annual, I would be happy with the installation
and the logbook entry.
Since you are new to the list. I guess I should mention that I do hold an A&P certificate
with IA.
There is one more consideration. Is the Turn Coordinator you intend to move (or discard
if you take my advice) used as a stabilization device for an autopilot or wing leveler? If
it is, you would need to place it elsewhere in the aircraft. I do have some opinions as to
how to handle that, if it is required, but I will let that go until another time!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/20010130 073908 msg02188.tex]

1234
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.11. MAINT-REGS

Field Approval
Sat, 3 Feb 2001 18:44:55

In a message dated 2/3/01 12:44:47 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Could this work like the rule of law regarding precedence? If a FSDO in
Walla Walla approves an installation would other FSDO’s be obligated to
accept it? If you showed evidence of an acceptance of an installation to
a FSDO in DC you wanted to do, would he have to accept it? If he did
not accept it would that make the original installation (accepted in Walla
Walla) illegal?

Good Evening Mike,

Boy, I just don’t know!
I know that there are installations around done in a manner that passes one place and
not another.
My feeling is that it would not automatically be approved just because it has been done
before.
However, if you have a 337 from one office that will generally help when applying for
the same thing at another.
I am sure that it would not make the first installation illegal if another office refused to
certify the same thing.
There is always the possibility that some inspector could make it his crusade and con-
vince the rest of officialdom that the first approval should be decertified, but that would
really be a Federal Case!
In any case, the first installation would be legal until it was rescinded. (I Think!)
Happy Skies,
Old Wishy Washy Bob
[ARTICLES/20010203 184455 msg02652.tex]

1235
7.11. MAINT-REGS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Field Approvals and Approved Data

Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:52:31

In a message dated 4/25/01 12:41:45 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

George, Thank you for your detailed explanation. I realize FSDO’s vary in
their interpretation of FAR’s, etc. But, I was not aware of a congressional
law, ”Act of Congress”, on this matter. I am now and will take heed, before
I get into trouble. Thanks. Ken

Good Morning Ken and George,

As you both know, I have no knowledge of the law and little about the regulatory
environment, bit I did attend an IA seminar this last evening at which this subject was
discussed.
The perception with which I came away from the meeting was that the FEDs have
been given guidance that it is NOT their responsibility to determine whether or not a
submitter of data had permission to use that data.
That may be a totally erroneous perception on my part, but it does appear that the
FEDs have recently been given new guidance which differs from that they were given a
year or so ago.
Happy Skies,
Old ’On The Fence’ Bob
[ARTICLES/20010425 015231 msg08256.tex]

1236
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.11. MAINT-REGS

Legal Parts
Sun, 27 Jul 1997 08:52:47

To William Webb,
My point precisely, but it is the AI who has to sign the book and it is his interpretation
that counts. If there is no direct data to the specific part he (or she ) makes the
determination.
There are some Feds who claim that any part put on the aircraft must come from
Raytheon or have an STC or PMA approval. Other Feds and most AIs have a more
conventional and, I feel, more practical view but it is still the AI who makes the decision.
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970727 085247 msg01383.tex]

1237
7.11. MAINT-REGS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Owner/Operator Sign Off

Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:33:41

Good Morning Nick Dudley,

In a message dated 98-03-31 02:41:43 EST, you write:

When signing-off the log (i.e. an oil change), does the owner/operator sign
his name only or name, title (i.e. owner, etc), pilot license number or in
some other manner?

This involves FAR 43.5 APPROVAL FOR RETURN TO SERVICE etc. and FAR 43.7
PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO APPROVE etc.
”Paragraph 43.7 (f) A person holding at least a private pilot certificate may approve
an aircraft for return to service after performing preventive maintenance under the
provisions of (para) 43.3(g).”
The wording to be used is spelled out in FAR Part 43.9. It is a rather long section so I
won’t try to include it all but paragraph (a) (4) states:
”If the work performed on the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance,
or component part has been performed satisfactorily, the signature, certificate number,
and kind of certificate held by the person approving the work. The signature constitutes
the approval for return to service only for the work performed.”
Incidentally the spelling of the words ”preventive” and ”propeller” are as used by the
FAA as is the use of commas. The spelling ”preventative” and ”propellor” are shown
in my dictionary as alternative spellings.
At maintenance seminars which I have attended recently the FAA has been hitting us
hard on not putting enough information in the aircraft records following maintenance.
Some people say that the less, the better in case of lawsuits. I like to include part
numbers, brands of components and other such information that I would be curious
about if I were looking at an airplane that someone else had maintained.
Your ”pilot” entry should look just like those from an A&P except for the type of
certificate held.
Look over different log books and see what looks the best to you.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980331 093341 msg01678.tex]

1238
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.11. MAINT-REGS

Owner Maintenance
Wed, 25 Mar 1998 11:19:56

Good Morning David Pyle,

In a message dated 98-03-25 09:22:56 EST, you write:

Lee Allen wrote that he is an *ex* mechanic and does his own oil changes.
I believe that oil changes are not an FAA approved owner (non-A&P)
maintenance item.

May I quote: FAR 43.3 paragraph (g), ”The holder of a pilot certificate issued under
Part 61 may perform preventive maintenance on any aircraft owned or operated by that
pilot which is not used under Part 121, 127, 129 or 135”
The functions allowed as preventive maintenance are covered under FAR Part 43, Ap-
pendix A , paragraph (c). There is no specific reference to ”changing the oil”, however
there is a paragraph, (c) (6), which specifically allows ”Lubrication not requiring disas-
sembly other than removal of non structural items such as cover plates, cowlings, and
fairings.” There is a further reference, (c) (23), allowing ”Cleaning or replacing fuel and
oil strainers or filter elements.”
There are other references in this section that might impact on the operation of changing
the oil, but none that I know of which would prohibit that being done by the qualified
pilot.
There is one additional caveat that applies to all maintenance done on any aircraft
by anyone, including A&Ps and IAs. FAR Part 65.91, paragraph (a), which describes
the ”General Privileges and Limitations” applicable to aircraft mechanics, includes the
language – ”However, he may not supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance or
alteration of, or approve and return to service, any aircraft or appliance, or part thereof,
for which he is rated unless he has satisfactorily performed the work concerned at an
earlier date.”
So, all that needs to be done is to perform the function under the supevision of a person
who is qualified to do the work and from then, on you are qualified!!
Be sure and make the required entries in the log and sign with your name and pilot
certificate type and number.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Mechanic
[ARTICLES/19980325 111956 msg01378.tex]

1239
7.11. MAINT-REGS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Owner Maintenance
Wed, 25 Mar 1998 11:30:19

Good Morning Lee Allen,

In a message dated 98-03-25 11:13:14 EST, you write:

You can do ” ANY” work on your plane if an A&P inspects it and signs it
off...

Not precisely true but utilized on a practical basis. The FAA holds that for work to
be done ”under supervision” the supervising individual must be physically available on
the property and available for consultation. As a practical matter, most A&Ps feel
comfortable signing off work performed when they were not on the property if they feel
that adequate inspection of the work is possible. Open to lots of interpretation isn’t it?
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980325 113019 msg01379.tex]

1240
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.11. MAINT-REGS

Owner Maintenance
Sat, 28 Mar 1998 01:16:52

Good Morning Ralph Requa,

In a message dated 98-03-27 23:58:43 EST, you write:

In regards to Part 43, owner maintenance. How is that part interpreted

when you are a partner in a multi-partner ownership agreement? Can all
the partners perform the listed maintenance?

May I quote: FAR Part 43.3 paragraph (g) ”The holder of a pilot certificate issued under
Part 61 may perform preventive maintenance on any aircraft owned or operated by that
pilot which is not used under Part 121, 127, 129, or135.”
Note that the reference is to ”owned OR operated” therefore any number of licensed
pilots may perform that maintenance provided they EITHER own or operate the aircraft.
No problem as long as the airplane is operated under Part 91 only. They wouldn’t need
to own any portion as long as they operate the aircraft. They wouldn’t have to operate
it as long as they owned a piece of it.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980328 011652 msg01523.tex]

1241
7.11. MAINT-REGS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Owner Maintenance
Sun, 29 Mar 1998 12:12:49

Good Morning Dwaine Moore,

In a message dated 98-03-29 02:47:37 EST, you write:

Regardless of what one wants to believe, a partnership in an airplane is not

owning an airplane. (Oh, I know I am going to catch hell on this one.)

Very interesting! I certainly do not have an opinion on this statement but would be very
interested in what any lawyers or other specialists in the fine points of our language have
to say.
I did look in my dictionary to see what it said and I could be convinced that Dwaine
is correct! I also tried for co-ownership and could find no such word even though there
were other hyphenated words listed.
I have attended local FSDO sponsored sessions on what was and was not legal for a rated
pilot to perform as preventive maintenance and who might perform that maintenance.
The question of the large flying club was specifically covered and the answer as I recall
was that they considered any member of the club to be an owner. I am sure that was
primarily the opinion of the person giving the seminar and he may well have misinter-
preted the situation. The specific question was whether a member of the club who had
not yet checked out in the club equipment could legally perform preventive maintenance
and sign for it. The answer was that as long as the individual was a licensed pilot and
held an equity position in the airplane he could do so.
I am anxious to hear a definitive answer!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19980329 121249 msg01566.tex]

1242
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.11. MAINT-REGS

Placard REquired by AD
Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:32:47

In a message dated 3/17/99 10:57:38 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

This AD was previously a Beech service bulletin. As I was redoing the

other myriad placards in my plane, I went ahead and made up one for this
service bulletin. Am I now in compliance with this AD with my homemade
placard, or do I have to buy part number 36-920059-1?

Good Morning Frank,

The following is a free opinion and is undoubtedly worth exactly what you are paying
for it.
It would seem to me that making your own placard should be considered a minor alter-
ation. A minor alteration can be approved and returned to service by an A&P with a
log book entry. Since the AD states that this particular AD can be complied with by
an owner with a Private pilot certificate or greater, it does not seem to be too great
a stretch to figure that a minor alteration of this placard would be approvable by that
Private pilot with the requisite entry in the aircraft record. The key would be if whoever
performs the next annual agrees. If the IA who does that inspection agrees that the
minor alteration is acceptable, you are OK. If not, the factory placards would have to
be applied or further approval of the home made placards from the FEDs obtained.
Incidentally if your A&P thinks it is a minor alteration but at the next annual, the
IA does not, that does not mean that the airplane has been illegal during the interim.
Tricky, huh?
Did I waffle sufficiently with that one?
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990317 123247 msg02946.tex]

1243
7.11. MAINT-REGS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Re-Weighing
Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:03:34

In a message dated 3/28/01 10:29:43 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Pete: We did the re-weighing and then did a simple logbook entry as a
part of the annual (weighing occurred during a weighing). Did not do
an equipment list - since that which was in the plane is that which was
weighed. Then, for each alteration thereafter, a 337 was used and the 337
has a W&B recalcualtion sheet attached. The 337 is not required for the
weighing. What was done is what my A&P believes is correct and I took
his word on that. Makes sense to me. Steve

Good Morning Steve,

I wouldn’t say that what your A&P did is wrong, but it isn’t the way I like to do it! I
do believe in an easier way.
There is a lot of latitude allowed in determining the form in which the Weight, Balance
and Equipment List records are kept. Putting them on the 337 was once required. While
that is no longer true, it does provide a safe repository for the data that can always be
recovered by contacting the FAA and getting copies of all 337s ever filed on your aircraft.
Your mechanic’s system utilizes that factor.
Now that computers are available that can be operated by a misfit like me, I prefer to
combine the Weight and Balance with the Equipment List. If it is all placed on a spread
sheet program, the changes can be made and a new form printed with ease.
I know of no reason to retain the old data any longer than is required of any other
maintenance records. Without looking it up, I believe that is only one year.
Old data is nice to have and will often aid in maintenance or in a sale, but it isn’t really
required.
As to what data is required, check AC 43.13-1B, Chapter 10.
The Equipment List requirement is covered by paragraph 10-19.
The main point is that there must be an accurate weight, accurate balance and an
accurate list of the equipment aboard available to the operator. The form of that data
is up to the owner and operator.
I haven’t checked this out myself, but there is a recommended form for a combined
Weight, Balance and Equipment List available through AOPA.
Check it out, it may help.
Happy Skies,

1244
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.11. MAINT-REGS

Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010328 130334 msg06753.tex]

1245
7.11. MAINT-REGS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Re-Weighing and Equipment List

Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:08:19

In a message dated 3/28/01 9:38:44 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Well, I understand that there has to be an equipment list. The recent article
in AOPA Pilot says that the list must include the equipment installed plus
the weight and arm of each piece.
I have the original equipment list from the factory, and I have the W&B
revisions over the years showing what has been added and subtracted.
(Although a few things seem to have been missed.) Now I have had my
plane weighed and I have a new weight and balance for the empty plane as
equipped when it was weighed. So I have an effective zero start point.
I have no real problem creating a new list of equipment that was on the
plane when it was re-weighed. But if I try to do the weights and balances
for each piece, there is no way that it will come out the same as the re-
weighing numbers.
So: Having re-weighed and having obtained from the re-weighing a new
empty weight and a new balance (arm and moment) what do I do about
the equipment list? Do I list only what was on the plane, or do I somehow
have to get the combined weights and balance information for all the pieces
to come out to the same numbers as the re-weighing numbers?
Pete

Good Evening Pete,

You make out the Equipment List showing the weight and arm of each piece of equipment
you found on the airplane at the time of weighing. There is no need to make the old
numbers reconcile with the new.
If and when you make any changes, you make the removals based on the numbers you
have listed on the Equipment List and make the additions as appropriate.
As I mentioned earlier, I would suggest that you seriously consider combining the lists
There is no requirement that they be maintained separately and with modern computer
capability, the easiest thing is to just combine the two. All that is required is that any
old data be marked as ”superseded” and the date of the change be listed along with the
name of the authorized person making the change. If you want to keep the old data for
historical purposes, that is fine, but they don’t have top be in the airplane.
All that is required to be on board is the data required by the operator to properly
operate the aircraft. That can be in the form of weights and moments data or placards,
as appropriate.

1246
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.11. MAINT-REGS

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010329 000819 msg06794.tex]

1247
7.11. MAINT-REGS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Re-Weighing and Equipment List

Thu, 29 Mar 2001 01:22:42

In a message dated 3/28/01 11:34:13 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

So even if I am careful, the weight and arm at the end of the new equipment
list will not be the same as the weight and arm given by the re-weighing
company.
And this, of course, creates the quandry.
Pete (who actually worries about this stuff)

Good Evening Pete,

I think you are on the correct path! Just forget about the previously established weight
and all of the changes between the time the airplane was built and the time of the most
recent weighing. Start with that new weight and the CG located as per the directions
in AC 43.13-1B Chapter 10.
You should list everything for which you have the data. If you don’t have the weight,
you can’t list it.
If you don’t have the CG of the component, you can’t list the arm either!
As an example, you might have an instrument in the panel which is six inches long and
has a weight shown on the data plate of three pounds. However, you have no way of
knowing where within the instrument is the CG of that instrument. The data is available
for some equipment, but not for all.
As a practical matter, you could probably estimate the CG of the instrument and use
that in relation to a known point as the arm, but it really isn’t necessary. I have a Piper
Pacer which came from the factory with very little data concerning the weights or arms
of factory installed equipment. No big deal until you decide to remove it!
The primary reason you want to list equipment you have is so that you can make
adjustments to the weight and balance data if you decide to remove that component.
In the absence of weight and arm data in the equipment list, it is acceptable to weigh
the equipment when it is removed, determine the CG of the component and measure
where it was when mounted in the aircraft. You then compute the weight and CG by
subtracting that weight from the weight determined at the most recent weighing and
adjusting the CG based on the moments determined at the time of removal.
The official numbers are those determined by your recent weighing. The Equipment List
is just so you know what was on board when it was weighed. If the data as to weight
and moment is not available, don’t post it!
The important thing is that the pilot have accurate data concerning the current weight

1248
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.11. MAINT-REGS

and the current CG of the empty airplane so that he/she can accurately adjust that
figure for the condition in which the aircraft will be flown.
Having the Equipment List is important so that one will know what was aboard at the
weighing.
Having the weight and arm of the equipment listed is primarily a convenience for anyone
who might remove a device or component which was on the airplane when weighed.
Many weights that are found in our paper work are atrocious. For the last few years,
Beech has used a figure they refer to as the Basic operating weight which includes the
”unusable” fuel and the oil weight in the empty weight. That is not the correct way
to determine the ”Empty Weight.” Empty Weight is supposed to represent the weight
that the aircraft will have when all of the fuel has been drained from the fuel tanks
with the airplane in the level flight position designated in the specifications. Any fuel
left in the aircraft after the tanks have been drained to the level of the fuel line to the
engine is known as residual fuel, not unusable fuel. Whether or not the weight of the
oil is included depends on whether the airplane was certificated as a Part 3 aircraft
or under the auspices of Part 23. Beech uses the FAA empty weight plus the lawyer
derived unusable fuel figure plus the weight of the oil as the Basic Operating Weight.
That figure is then used to enter the Beech supplied tables and determine the operating
weight and balance. You can do that, or you can do all of the calculations based on the
actual empty weight and adjust as required for the actual consumables on board.
Weighing procedures commonly used throughout our industry are poor and rarely give
accurate results!
I have seen scales used in high priced shops which have an allowable error listed as high
as two percent. Two percent of 2500 pounds is 50 pounds. That is a larger error than I
would like to see in my weight data.
I guess I am running on here and going far beyond your question.
Just use the data you have, list as much as you can and be sure that any changes are
properly calculated and documented.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010329 012242 msg06797.tex]

1249
7.11. MAINT-REGS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Rear Seats - Legal to Remove?

Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:55:32

Good Afternoon Tom,

In a message dated 98-08-19 14:22:03 EDT, you write:

Ah, another controversy!

I don’t know about pre- roughly 1965 models, which may have ”bench”
seats, but the understanding I developed working at the Beech factory
is that the seats are considered part of the ”installed equipment” of the
airplane, and as such they’re part of the ”aircraft empty weight” on the
weight-and-balance paperwork.
According to Beech, removing a seat, then, would require that new weight
and balance paperwork be generated, to show the adjusted aircraft empty
weight, moment and c.g. location. You can’t simply ”mentally adjust”
the empty condition numbers–such amended paperwork would have to be
signed by a licensed mechanic to be ”legal”.
You may, however, generate more than one equipment list/weight and bal-
ance sheet, clearly labeled ”Four seats installed, five seats installed, etc.”,
and maintain them both in the airplane. That would allow you to calculate
aircraft weight and balance (and demonstrate those calculations if need be)
for different aircraft empty conditions.
Another option might be to have a weight and balance done with two seats
only installed, and then make a weight and balance form that leaves a place
for adding the weight and moment of each seat as necessary, just as you’d
add or not for baggage, etc.

All that you say is true with the possible exception of who has to sign the weight and
balance forms. I am not sure that one must be a ”licensed mechanic” to do so.
I have tried to find a reference in the FARs and have thus far seen none.
The closest I have come is to some references of an ”authorized individual”. As we all
are aware, the pilot can in many cases be the ”authorized individual” who returns an
aircraft to service.
I do sign my aircraft record changes with my A&P number but I am not convinced it is
necessary.
Happy Controversial Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19980819 145532 msg04549.tex]

1250
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.11. MAINT-REGS

Regulation
Sat, 4 Mar 2000 23:55:00

In a message dated 3/4/00 10:36:00 PM Central Standard Time, Ernie [email protected]

writes:

It is amazing how we survived without all their guidance. Ever since the
FAA became the experts GA has not done anything significant with out
someone being able to spend a ton of money. Oh Well, don’t worry if Al
Gore gets elected we probably won’t be able to fly anyway since we use
leaded fuel

Good Evening Ernie,

It is fun to read about the ease with which the folks back in the thirties stuck different
engines, props and all on their airplanes with no government interference at all.
One of the current examples of how the system hamstrings progress is to note the way
GPS is going like gangbusters in all of the non-regulated fields and yet the snails pace
that it is being assimilated into one the most intense navigation fields, aviation. Just
think what we could have if approval of the systems used were not required!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS I don’t know about Al Gore or Young Bush, but if we get stuck with McCain, no one
but the airlines and the military will be allowed anywhere in the nations skies. He has
stated that none of the little airplanes are necessary to the nations health and welfare.
Pity!
[ARTICLES/20000304 235500 msg04196.tex]

1251
7.11. MAINT-REGS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

STC’s and Field Approvals

Thu, 24 Aug 2000 18:25:12

In a message dated 8/24/00 3:52:58 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I do not know, however I was wondering if a statue of limitations might

exist and an STC might become ”public domain” after so many years. The
three light gear STC is over 25 years old. Does anyone know? Joe Salyer

Good Afternoon Joe,

I, too, don’t have any absolute knowledge on this subject, but I would like to add a
couple of thoughts.
To issue a local approval via the 337 route is a privilege given by the FAA to their
maintenance inspectors. They have no obligation to issue a local approval regardless of
the strength of the data submitted.
If they do issue the local approval, and any litigation ensues, it is the inspector who
signed the approval who is responsible and not the FAA.
There was a directive given a couple of years ago telling the inspectors to be sure that
any proprietary issue was considered before using data that may have such an issue
associated with it.
The intent was to protect the interest of the folks who had paid the money to develop
the data in the first place. I personally have no argument with that.
The problem comes when the person or persons who developed the data are not readily
available. I heard a rumor, no verification, at Oshkosh this year, that further guidance
had been issued telling the inspectors that if, in their judgment, the owners of the data
were no longer readily available to the industry, they could use the data as justification
for another local approval.
It comes back to that individual local maintenance inspector. If he/she is willing to take
the responsibility, the approval may be issued.
I guess it pays to be on good terms with your local FED!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000824 182512 msg12529.tex]

1252
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.11. MAINT-REGS

Weight and Balance Update

Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:20:27

In a message dated 11/15/00 8:37:46 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob, you really aren’t serious. It might be ok not to weigh legally, in fact
many airplanes come from the factory that way. A major change like a
different engine plus all those mods installed just by calculation over the
year just might be a serious change. Have there been any repairs, or re-
painting?

Good Morning Cy,

Yes, I am quite serious! I read the comment as meaning that a weighing was required
as a part of the approval and, for the approvals with which I am familiar, that is NOT
required.
As to whether a weighing of the aircraft is good idea or not, that is more a question of
how long it has been since the airplane has been weighed and how diligently the weight
and balance computations have been recorded.
I often see log book entries of changes that I know to have been several pounds, or more,
where the weight calculations were pencil whipped with a notation that the weight
change was ”negligible.” Many layers of upholstery are often found with absolutely no
record of those layers in the ships papers.
Such poor and incomplete records do, in my mind indicate the desirability of a weighing
of the aircraft.
On the other hand, replacement of an IO-520 with an IO-550 is a very simple computa-
tion using well known weights and CGs. The same is true of the lighter weight starters,
alternators, magnetos and propellors.
If the airplane has a good weight history, why do it again?
If the airplane has a dubious weight history, it should be weighed whether the engine is
changed or not.
Do we agree?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001115 102027 msg16253.tex]

1253
7.11. MAINT-REGS CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Annual Inspection Discrepancy

Tue, 27 Apr 1999 08:41:39

Good Morning Eric,

In a message dated 4/27/99 7:28:59 AM Central Daylight Time, you wrote:

A hypothetical question for you IA’s out there...

You are an IA doing an annual inspection on a customer’s airplane, and
you find something that, while not creating an immediate danger to flight,
is likely to become less-than-100-percent-safe sometime within the next
several months (i.e. sometime before the next annual inspection). The
needed parts to fix the problem won’t be available for a month or two. You
decide to sign off the airplane as being airworthy but only for the next two
months ... after two months, the aircraft is out-of-license, out-of-annual,
whatever you want to call it, and must be grounded until the repair is
completed.
Can you do this?

Given the proviso that you understand that this answer is given free and advice is often
worth what you pay for it, here goes!
Simple answer, no.
There is no provision to extend or limit the times between the required inspections.
If the component meets the required airworthiness standards at the time of the annual,
it should be accepted, if not, it must be repaired or listed as a discrepancy and the
aircraft cannot be returned to service until such time as the discrepancy is corrected by
a person authorized to do so.
You may find other opinions, but that is the way I see it!
Did I waffle sufficiently?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990427 084139 msg04053.tex]

1254
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.12. MAINT-VACPUMP

7.12 MAINT-VACPUMP

1255
7.12. MAINT-VACPUMP CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Intrument Air Induction Hose ”S” Curve

Sun, 19 Nov 2000 19:56:48

In a message dated 11/19/00 11:43:00 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I cannot figure out what the ”S” curve is all about. It seems easier just to
run a short piece of straight line from above the inline filter to the firewall.
What am I missing? What is the purpose of the ”S”? Can the ”S” be
removed and a straight short line put in?
Pete Tracy Bishop, California

Good Evening Peter,

I am sure that at least part of the reason for all of the bending around is to aid in
providing adequate flexibility to handle the vibration and twisting of the engine, but I
have also been told that the aluminum tubing is used to provide a modicum of cooling
to the pressure air of the instrument pneumatic system.
That is why the aluminum tubing should not be replaced with a similar or shorter piece
of flexible hose.
Once again, that is not my call and it may be an Old Wives Tale!
The easiest way to eliminate the bothersome tubing would be to go all electric. I would
like to do that, but haven’t yet persuaded myself to go that route!
Happy Skies.
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001119 195648 msg16470.tex]

1256
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.12. MAINT-VACPUMP

Vaccum Pump Installation and Maintenance

Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:53:33

In a message dated 1/4/00 3:18:43 PM Central Standard Time, beech [email protected]

writes:

Does anyone else have this problem? Logbook entries say the lines were
cleaned and new gasket and filters installed each time. What am I doing
wrong (other than not budgeting $2 per hour for the vacuum pump)? By
the way, these were all Sigma-Tek pumps. Does Airborne make a better
pump in spite of its old-fashioned carbon vane design?

Good Afternoon John,

I definitely am not an expert on vacuum pumps but I will state my experience. I have
never used the Sigma-Tek but I have installed Rapco pumps on peoples airplanes when
they wanted to save a few bucks. I have never had any complaints. For my own ship,
I use Airborne and replace it when it starts to show signs of stress. That is generally
around eight hundred hours. The first indication is an increase in the amount of carbon
dust that is generated. It will also start to show a lower pressure when the engine
is idling. I highly recommend the use of a direct cooling sleeve such as the Rapco
rather than just the blast tube Beech installs. Even though the hoses and tubes where
supposedly cleaned, I wonder just how good a job was done. I have observed mechanics
who did a rather cursory puff or two through the lines and signed it off as lines cleaned.
I like to blow them out thoroughly with air, thread a piece of safety wire through, pull
a swab through gun barrel style and then blow it out again. For the vacuum style,
it might be worthwhile having the gyros disassembled sufficiently to be sure that no
particles have migrated to them. For the pressure systems, the pressure relief valve
should be disassembled and cleaned. If it doesn’t look like it will seal well, maybe it
should be replaced.
Airborne offers a test kit which they will loan you free of charge. I have never used one,
but if you are having that much trouble with your system, maybe you should give them
a try. I am not sure if this is the latest number, but the one I have used in the past
for Airborne is 440 284-6300. They have been very helpful. Incidentally, I just installed
their new 216 pump and am hopeful that it may make it to 1000 hours. That is their
suggested useful life for the new pump.
Happy Skies,
Old Coot Bob
[ARTICLES/20000104 165333 msg00181.tex]

1257
7.12. MAINT-VACPUMP CHAPTER 7. MAINT

Vacuum Pump Replacement

Fri, 19 Nov 1999 22:53:42

In a message dated 11/19/99 9:39:13 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Dennis, I put a new vacuum pump on our M-35 (IO-470C) in July 1998.
Did the work myself in less that an hour. New Airborne pump (model
216CW I think) cost approx $370 after sending core back. If they charge
for much over an hour, they are working pretty slow. Blue Skies, Buz Rich

Good Evening Buzz and Dennis,

The one hour should be plenty of time for just changing the pump, however going across
the airport, towing the aircraft to the shop, taking off the filter, lines and regulator,
blowing out the system (necessary if the pump has failed, good idea even if it hasn’t)
reinstalling all of the components, checking the operation and checking for leaks, then
returning the aircraft and filling out the log books could easily kill a half day! I know
we all figure that the mechanic can just start working on our aircraft and complete any
task with no preparation, but that isn’t the way it works in real life. There is a degree of
staging costs that have to be accounted for even by the most efficient mechanics. Once
he or she is on the job, things can be done quite rapidly, but getting ready does take
time. Paperwork can be daunting, especially if it is an airplane with which the mechanic
is not familiar.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991119 225342 msg10836.tex]

1258
CHAPTER 7. MAINT 7.12. MAINT-VACPUMP

Wet vs. Dry Vacuum Pump

Sat, 3 Feb 2001 11:07:30

In a message dated 2/3/01 9:34:14 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Actually, replacing something as critical as a vac pump every 10 years is

not such a bad thing....Most people wait until it fails to replace it....not a
good idea.

If you use the plane for hard IFR, I’d say more like 600-800 hrs and then
buy another one.
Cliff A&P/IA

Good Morning Cliff,

Aren’t you both correct?
If we are discussing a wet pump, it would probably be a good idea to have it overhauled
at the ten year mark just to make sure that the seals are still in good shape and properly
lubricated. However they are very reliable and long lived.
There are lot of airplanes that don’t fly six hundred or more hours in ten years. They
might even need it done more often than one that flies more!
If we are discussing the dry pump, it is somewhat dependent on the service it is seeing.
If the pump is being used to drive a lot of old AN instruments, an autopilot and maybe
even wing boots, it won’t last as long as one which is only powering one modern small
attitude gyro.
I lean toward replacing the dry pumps somewhere around six to eight hundred hours,
but I temper that by observing the amount of graphite that is being produced by the
pump and the chronological age of the unit.
Along that line, I really like the clear plastic cased inline filters which allow direct
observation of the crud being collected.
I also make it a point to really inspect the entire system any time the pump is replaced.
The regulators do get old and dirty and it is relatively economical to replace all of the
hoses at least every third or fourth pump change. For sure if it has been spitting out
hunks of graphite.
On top of that, I am working toward my goal of going all electric and eliminating the
pneumatic junk entirely!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010203 110730 msg02632.tex]

1259
7.12. MAINT-VACPUMP CHAPTER 7. MAINT

1260
Chapter 8

MISC

1261
 CHAPTER 8. MISC

Accidents and Risk

Thu, 25 May 2000 22:19:58

In a message dated 5/25/00 7:27:00 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Following this logic, everyone who gets into a GA aircraft is granting per-
mission for the pilot to injure or kill them. By extension, everyone who
rides as a passenger in someone else’s car assumes the risk of injury or
death, and everyone who goes to another’s home or place of business as-
sumes the risk of being injured while there. If you go to the zoo and a
trainer inadvertently lets a lion out and you get mauled, then you are to
blame because you assumed the risk of being around the animals. If you
walk down the sidewalk and a building falls on you, that is your problem
because you assumed the risk of being near an old building.

Good Evening Wes,

I guess I am about to step into another of those arenas where my knowledge is totally
lacking, but in each of the cases you mention, I think the party who takes the action
you specify does assume a portion of the risk.
Why should we try to protect everyone from everything? Why does there always have
to be someone who is found at fault?
Don’t we all accept some risk just for being alive?
No one has to ride in a small plane (or any plane for that matter), the ride in someone
else’s automobile is not mandatory, you don’t have to go in a neighbors house or even
inside a place of business. Should you decide to frequent a place that has a wild animal
around, isn’t there a greater chance of being mauled by that animal? I would think that
if you are around old buildings there is more likelihood of a stone falling on your head
than if you are out in an open field.
I think that before anyone is compensated for having had a bad experience in the sit-
uations you describe it should be shown that the individual from whom one is trying
to collect was grossly negligent or otherwise operating far from the norm of how others
would operate in similar circumstances.
The mere existence of an unpleasant result does not seem to me to indicate a compens-
able situation.
For what it’s worth!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000525 221958 msg08678.tex]

1262
CHAPTER 8. MISC

Affording an Airplane
Wed, 8 Apr 1998 16:10:18

Good Afternoon Jerry,

In a message dated 98-04-08 15:11:38 EDT, you write:

Thank for letting me get that off my chest. You can now press Delete.Jerry
Frank

I know exactly how you feel!! I bought my first model 35 in 1953 and it was almost a
full years wages. If I hadn’t been able to do most all of the work myself and had a lot of
help from good friends and casual acquaintances it wouldn’t have worked! Thanks to an
understanding wife who likes to travel things have worked out well and I have managed
to trade along to a 1978 V35B.
In some ways I wish I would have stayed with the last straight 35 I had, but the V35B
is nice.
Stick with it and enjoy!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980408 161018 msg01885.tex]

1263
 CHAPTER 8. MISC

Aileron Roll
Wed, 1 Mar 2000 19:07:45

In a message dated 3/1/00 3:52:28 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Anybody remember for sure?

Good Evening Frank,

I don’t remember ”for sure,” but I believe it was Bevo Howard that did the airshow in
a straight 35 many years before Marion did his thing in the F33C.
I know it is of no interest to anyone but me, but I am going to tell you anyway!
My absolutely first ride in an airplane was with Marion Cole when he was a line boy at
the old Mount Hawley Airport in Peoria, Illinois. He later went off to teach Navy pilots
how to fly in the N3N. Great guy and marvelous aviator from a unique family.
Happy Skies.
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000301 190745 msg04024.tex]

1264
CHAPTER 8. MISC

Air Parks
Sun, 31 Oct 1999 10:40:22

In a message dated 10/31/99 7:45:45 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

At 08:27 PM 10/31/99 +1100, Ron Koyich wrote:

Hi, Eric - one of the reasons I’d move to an air park would be that it would
be a community populated with people that have a love for, and a tolerance
of, airplane sounds. Yes/no?
Yes. But perhaps not at 5 AM, or even 6 AM. Also, it’s a small airpark,
with people living all around it that aren’t part of the airpark and aren’t
pilots.

Good Morning Ron, Eric And All,

For what it’s worth!
We live on an Air Park with some 80 homes and about 100 airplanes. It is completely
built out and has been in existence for some 50 years. When first constructed it was out
in the country and is now completely surrounded by normal urban housing. Regular
city style half acre lots.
There have been some problems over the years and a few efforts to get the airport closed.
About thirty years ago, long before I moved here, the Air Park had around thirty homes.
Things were pretty bad. The group got together with the complaining neighbors and
started a PR campaign to make things work.
One of the compromises made is a policy that no takeoffs will be conducted between 11
PM and 6 AM. Landings are allowed any time.
The most important outcome of those meetings was the realization that the airport
folks needed to get involved in local community activities. They began to join the local
bowling leagues, church groups, homeowners association, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and
anything else that would allow the flyers to get to know the non flyers and vice versa.
There is one day a year when, in association with a community wide family picnic, free
airplane rides are given to any resident of the community and all of the grandchildren
and other guests they care to bring. The rides are volunteered by, and all expenses paid
by, the individual pilots. No direct association with any of the community groups at all.
When we do Young Eagle rides, we invite the parents to attend and after all of the
children have been cared for, we encourage the parents to go up as well. We sometimes
spend longer with the parents than the Young Eagles. Whatever seems appropriate to
make them enjoy the experience.
Any and all who live in our community are told we would be happy to have any of their
friends who own or fly small private planes visit and use the strip any time. We ask

1265
 CHAPTER 8. MISC

only that the incoming pilot contact one of the airport board members by phone or in
person to get a briefing as to our local operational restrictions and as to where they
should park. No charge is made for this accommodation.
For those aircraft owners who live nearby, but not on the strip, we have a limited number
of tiedowns available that can be rented and the field is available for their use at the
same rates as a resident. That courtesy is only available to local folks, not to just anyone
who wants a tiedown.
We now find that local residents refer to the strip as ”their” airport. It is even listed as
a plus when they are selling their homes.
We still have a few complainers, but overall, the neighbors are happy and friendly. It
does require a conscious effort to get along.
My neighbor immediately to the east has an AT-6. He always makes reduced power
takeoffs, both RPM and MP. My neighbor to the west has a Cessna 185. With the
original engine, it was by far the noisiest airplane on the field. He also uses the reduced
power technique when it is practical to do so. When he has the floats on and heads to
Canada. All of the power available is needed and it makes a lot of noise, but he doesn’t
make 6 AM departures in that mode.
He recently installed an IO-550 and has a three blade prop. The original 520 turned
2850 and the 550 only turns 2700. It is a LOT quieter now.
The combination of a little consideration and a lot of getting to know your neighbors
will make a tremendous difference in how the field and it’s operations are accepted.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991031 104022 msg09926.tex]

1266
CHAPTER 8. MISC

B777 Flight Time

Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:48:32

In a message dated 12/21/99 9:27:03 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Are you sayin’ that there is someone out there that might just let me do a
few touch-n-go’s in one [B747] ?

All it takes is money! I think I heard 777 flight time was available at around ten grand
per hour!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS I just had to change the spelling in the subject line, sorry if that confuses anything!
[ARTICLES/19991221 224832 msg12222.tex]

1267
 CHAPTER 8. MISC

Cost of Flying
Wed, 3 Jan 2001 13:43:50

In a message dated 1/3/01 11:09:55 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

It’s not just a matter of money either. Flying is expensive but not so
expensive that it can’t be done if you manage your priorities.

Good Afternoon Hal and All,

I tend to agree with Hal.
There are lot’s of ways to fly that don’t require a lot of money. Many of the members
of our glider club have relatively low paying jobs. They are able to come to the field,
play with gliders, talk about flying and just plain have a good time without spending
any large sums of money. Many only fly the gliders a few hours every year, but they get
to fly the towplane every flyable weekend if they want.
Getting in a four place high speed cross-country machine is going to cost a few bucks,
but you don’t have to do that to enjoy the pleasures of flight.
I remember that in my days of sailing, not all of the folks who belonged to our yacht
club could afford a cruising sail boat, but they still enjoyed sailing by crewing for others
and enjoying the camaraderie of the group.
I feel that lack of money is an excuse, not a reason, to stay out of aviation.
I have always driven older cars and lived in a simple home so that I could indulge in my
passion for flight.
The problem is, we are not doing a very good job of developing that passion in the
younger folks!
It is cheaper to take flying lessons from a CFI than it is to take tennis lessons from an
unlicensed tennis pro.
We all do what we want to do with our funds.
Just as there are low cost ways to go sailing, there are low cost ways to go flying.
You only need the true desire.
Any venture in life takes an expenditure of time or money. As many have said, it depends
on your priorities.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010103 134350 msg00209.tex]

1268
CHAPTER 8. MISC

Eclipse Jet
Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:36:57

In a message dated 6/19/00 6:59:48 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

The Eclipse, the Safire, and the Century Jet are all possibilities for our
construction company airplane (to replace the 58TC) some time in the
future.

Good Morning Tom,

They are all out of my price class, but right now the Eclipse looks the best. It is planned
to be an all aluminum airframe and appears to have the wealthiest people involved in
it’s development.
If they managed to build it for the price quoted, it would be competitive in price with
a model 36.
Great things are on the horizon!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000619 113657 msg09872.tex]

1269
 CHAPTER 8. MISC

Eclipse Jet
Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:43:30

In a message dated 6/19/00 4:48:04 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

We were delivering 20 Aerostars each month in 1969. Total employee count

was about 1400. About 600 on one shift and 400 on each of two more shifts.

Good Evening George,

I guess that means that 2000 folks should shove out 30 airplanes per month or about
one and one half per working day!
There have been so many wonderful things proposed over the years that never happened,
it is easy to be skeptical.
Beech started out with the thought of building the Bonanza primarily with electric spot
welding. If it would have worked, and if they could have sold the ten thousand a year
that they originally envisioned, the airplane would have been cheap transportation.
There have been many things done with electronics that I never imagined could be done.
Maybe those same minds can bring some magic to the building of aircraft.
Would have, could have, should have!
Wouldn’t be miraculous if they could pull it off?
Who knows, someday, old retired airline pilots may all be boring holes with jets instead
of Bonanzas.
It is fun to dream!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000619 184330 msg09902.tex]

1270
CHAPTER 8. MISC

Flying
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:44:29

Good Evening Cy,

”I decided that if I could fly for ten years before I was killed in a crash, it would be a
worthwhile trade for an ordinary lifetime. Charles Lindbergh”
Your Lindbergh quote is one that I have used to guide my life in more areas than
aviation. What good is living if there is no enjoyment?
I first read it a few years after I soloed. So far so good!
Thanks for bringing it up.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010119 184429 msg01266.tex]

1271
 CHAPTER 8. MISC

Flying Clubs
Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:52:11

Good Afternoon All,

I have very little direct experience with flying clubs, but it has always seemed to me that
there might be a place for a flying club which consisted of members who would invest
almost the same amount of money that they would have in an individual airplane but
wherein greater utility and availability was provided.
How about some of you mathematically inclined folks doing your thing with the numbers
that could help one determine the availability of one airplane owned and flown by one
owner as against two or more airplanes owned and flown by various numbers of multiple
owners.
If one individual owns one airplane, he still does not have one hundred percent avail-
ability. There will be times when the airplane is unavailable due to scheduled or non-
scheduled maintenance.
Two airplanes owned by two individuals would quite likely provide better availability
numbers for both owners than individual ownership.
How about five airplanes owned by ten people? Or fifty people!
Has anyone worked out the probabilities of such ”club” style ownership?
I would envision the group owning as nearly identical airplanes as possible so that the
availability would be consistent as to utility of operation.
I know there are a lot of fine large flying clubs around. Do any of them provide better
availability of aircraft than individual ownership?
Just curious!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990322 175211 msg03152.tex]

1272
CHAPTER 8. MISC

Flying Films
Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:18:34

In a message dated 2/18/00 1:09:43 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Can you guys suggest some good aviation films?

Good Afternoon Phaedra,

How about JayJay the Jet Plane? My grandchildren love it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000218 141834 msg03108.tex]

1273
 CHAPTER 8. MISC

Flying Films
Fri, 18 Feb 2000 18:45:01

In a message dated 2/18/00 5:30:52 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Not exactly a movie, but don’t forget the Sky King series. From a year or
two ago.

For What It’s Worth,

The star of that series is operating an airport near Terre Haute, Indiana.
It is called, appropriately enough, Sky King!!
The identifier is 3I3. That is an ”I”as in Indiana between the 3s, not a one.
The airport has IFR approaches and there are all sorts of memorabilia around the place.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000218 184501 msg03131.tex]

1274
CHAPTER 8. MISC

Flying the Airliners

Mon, 12 Jan 1998 12:40:55

Good Morning Tom,

In a message dated 98-01-07 09:36:36 EST, you write:

my dad told me the UAL pilots loved to slip the DC-6s.

Yes, It did slip nicely and the slip was used by some when the situation demanded.
It wasn’t till the jets came on the property that the company said to quit using the slip
as an altitude losing maneuver. Most of us still used the slip as a crosswind landing
technique. The jets generally had relatively high flap extension speeds and the drag rise
was very high at the higher speeds which enabled us to develop some extremely high
sink rates when needed. So much so, that a couple of airplanes were lost before the
industry learned how to handle it.
Happy Skies,
Bob
P.S. The Stearman flies when the sun is out, the temperature above forty and the winds
are light.
[ARTICLES/19980112 124055 msg00258.tex]

1275
 CHAPTER 8. MISC

Hauling the Family

Sat, 14 Nov 1998 07:26:53

Good Morning Jeb, Skip and All,

In a message dated 11/13/98 11:29:05 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

those kids get older and heavier (we won’t discuss the pilot...) faster than
I can say BFR.

How true!
Having agreed to that premise, I would like to expand the thought a bit. I went through
that ”kids getting heavier” stage some forty years ago. At first it was adequately handled
by a reduction in the fuel loads which added a few stops along the way to grandmas
house.
Those stops were actually rather appreciated by the occupants and the only problems
were the days when extensive low ceilings called for far away alternates.
I did enter into a partnership which provided me with a Twin Beech to haul the family
around and that worked very well.
The funny thing was, I rarely had the whole family to haul around!
It seemed that as the children became fifteen to sixteen years old, they found other
things to do rather than accompany the old folks on trips around the country. I could
have flown almost all of my model 18 trips using the old Bonanza just as well. It was a
lot of fun arriving with my mini-airliner, but it was not necessary most of the time.
The second factor was that the kids were getting to the stage of needing cross-country
experience on their own and they often flew another airplane to grandmas house and
met the old folks there. See – That is another excuse to get the kids to learn to fly!
We did try a Baron for a while, but found that the Bonanza seemed to do the job most
of the time and was a better fit for my financial capabilities.
There are a lot of options available. The dreaded C210 has an excellent load carrying
ability and a much better CG envelope than we enjoy. While I never cared for the
handling characteristics of the 210, the numbers are pretty good. We had a C195 for a
while. That was a joy to fly, but no better at hauling the family than the Bonanza.
We bought a nice new V35A with factory installed tip tanks in the late sixties for a FBO
operation in which I was involved at the time and it had a great useful load. Around
1472 pounds as I recall. The CG was still a problem though and the fifth and sixth seats
rarely carried other than small children.
The kids not only get big fast, they also disappear from family outings fast. Buy an
airplane to fit your needs, but don’t forget that your needs will likely change rapidly

1276
CHAPTER 8. MISC

throughout your life.

Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981114 072653 msg06938.tex]

1277
 CHAPTER 8. MISC

Jepp Charts
Fri, 19 Mar 1999 13:37:48

In a message dated 3/19/99 10:31:44 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Assuming the updates are some trouble and that you’ve used NOAA charts
can you tell me briefly why you prefer Jeppesen? And in particular is are
the Jeppesen GPS charts superior?

Good Afternoon John,

Asking me why I use Jepp charts instead of NOAA is rather like asking me why I fly a
Bonanza instead of a Cessna 210!
Everybody has their preferences. Both get the job done.
I have been using Jepps for the last fifty years and they grow on you!
I find them much easier to read. They tend to have more pilot oriented extra information
available and, besides that, Jepp was a United Air Lines pilot and we old guys have to
stick together. He was the first to issue such plates. The approaches were originally
written out in a narrative form and took some visualization to use properly.
There is no doubt that my long use of the product makes me very prejudiced toward
them.
Putting in the revisions is a pain!
It takes me from two to four hours every other week to insert the revision. It must be
remembered, though, that I am involved in a project where I look for certain changes
and trends in the approaches. I therefore may spend two or three minutes on a single
page while I record and analyze the data.
I would say that if you just stuck in the pages without looking at the changes, the full
lower forty-eight coverage would still take an hour to an hour and a half to do.
Jepp does have a quick change option where the pages are just thrown away the same
as the NOAA charts.
It is a little out of my price class and it doesn’t fit in well with my evaluation project.
I have recently added the JeppView to my coverage and that seems to have tremendous
potential if you can find a computer that you are willing to trust well enough to eliminate
the paper charts. It works wonderfully. I don’t like the idea of trying to pick out the
charts before a trip though, I wouldn’t use it unless I had the confidence to just carry
the CD and the computer and call up the charts as they are needed. I am not at that
stage yet!
I have used the government charts a fair amount. When I was actively instructing, I

1278
CHAPTER 8. MISC

always recommended that my students start out with the NOAA system since that is
what they would be using on the written. I don’t know if that is valid reasoning anymore
or not. I never did get as comfortable with them as I am with the Jepps.
I guess it’s the same old story, ”you pays your money and you takes your choice.”
Not much help was I?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990319 133748 msg03025.tex]

1279
 CHAPTER 8. MISC

Life Rafts
Mon, 22 Mar 1999 08:40:42

In a message dated 3/22/99 3:38:25 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

So before someone mails a raft they might check on who is responsible for
declaring it HAZMAT.

Good Morning All,

Shipping the life raft does seem to be quite a problem.
As I understand it, the entity that ships the raft must be certified as having had all of
the special training and record keeping capability that the US government has seen fit
to impose.
I have mine checked, packed and recertifed by the manufacturer who is located in Florida.
About four or five years ago, when I tried to ship mine back for service, UPS refused
the shipment. I called the company who does the repacking and they told me that these
shipping regulations had been imposed. They knew of no way around them.
I was fortunate in that I had a friend heading for Fort Lauderdale and he agreed to drop
my raft off at the repacker in Hollywood. Since that time, I have been dropping it off
there following my overwater trips.
They are qualified to ship it to me via UPS and it is at some reasonable price. I don’t
recall the exact amount, but it is something like twenty bucks.
If I want to ship it back to them. I have to locate a shipping company who have personnel
that have gone through the training program and can do the HAZMAT inspection, pack
and then ship the thing to Florida. That can run from 150 to 200 bucks!
It’s as bad as dealing with the FAA!
I have spoken to some of my friends who fly overwater more often than I and was told
that some of them have shipped the unit as aircraft parts and didn’t say what it really
was. That would be exposing yourself to the potential of some rather heavy fines if the
true nature of the shipment were discovered.
While the raft must be inspected every year if it is to be used as a required flotation
device, we GA types are not required to have flotation equipment on board so I have
only been having mine repacked and certified if am planning an overwater trip. Even
then, if it is less than a year overdue, I haven’t had it certified.
I think the best answer is to find a source as close to your base of operation as possible
that can do the repacking and certifying.
Happy Skies,

1280
CHAPTER 8. MISC

Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990322 084042 msg03114.tex]

1281
 CHAPTER 8. MISC

Life Rafts
Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:38:17

Good Morning Skip,

In a message dated 3/22/99 8:00:11 AM Central Standard Time, you wrote:

Bob, if you are happy with the emergency raft you have and the manufac-
tures service would you be kind enough to share that info. with us? I hope
to fly to Eleuthera a lot this year. Thanks! Skip Weld, near Orlando

Be happy to!
Mine is a 4 man raft made and serviced by Survival Products, Inc., 5614 S.W. 25th
Street, Hollywood, FL 33023. Telephone: 954 966-7329.
I have the one that is attached to a survival pack and they are both in one package
which measures 12 ” by 13” by 7”. I also purchased two life vests from them. Whenever
I have the raft serviced, I also have the life vests serviced.
I did no research of the market before the purchase, a friend recommended them, so I
bought!
Most experts recommend that you take it apart and familiarize yourself with the contents
before you head out on an overwater trip. I have never done that, but it is undoubtedly
a good idea.
I don’t figure to be in the water long enough to need the food, but I do take a couple of
gallons of water along. I also secure a small waterproof bag containing a handheld 760
comm unit, a handheld GPS and lots of AA batteries to the raft and the water jugs by
a small nylon cord.
I have been pleased with their service. However, I have been told there is an outfit in
Rockford, IL which MAY be able to service my raft. The person that told me about it
has his life jackets recertifed there but wasn”t sure about rafts. If true, that would be
much more convenient for me. I last had my raft serviced in November of 1998 for a
trip we made to Venezuela, so I am at least a year and a half from having it done again.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990322 113817 msg03127.tex]

1282
CHAPTER 8. MISC

Logging time - Tach or Hobbs?

Mon, 17 Aug 1998 13:01:21

Good Afternoon Robert Lightfoot,

In a message dated 98-08-17 12:38:29 EDT, you write:

Thanks, Is there a FAR to back this up? I have been looking, but have not
found it.

Unfortunately, there is considerable discussion within the agency as to the proper inter-
pretation of the rules of logging time on an engine or other component.
This has come to the fore due to the emergence of electronic recording tachometers.
There are many Feds who argue that the regulations require that engine time be logged
based on the actual number of hours the engine is operated regardless of the RPM or
whether or not it is in flight. Others feel that the actual number of flight hours is the
proper parameter and that is supported by historical data in that most all airlines have
always recorded their engine time in that manner.
The other side of the coin is that we have a very long history of using tach time in
evaluating engine time and use. That brings up the question of what RPM the tach
should be recording? It is my understanding that there has never been a regulation
stating what it should be but there have been some recommendations.
I am currently told that one of the manufacturers of electronic tachs has an approval
for limiting the time at which the tach will log time to those times it is operating above
something like 1300 RPM, thus it would for all practical purposes, record flight time.
Another of the popular electronic tach manufacturers has been told that is not legal and
that the first approval should never have been issued.
What am I saying? Just that the procedures currently used for certification of any
device are so confusing and contradictory that I am surprised anything gets done!
That is NOT to knock the FEDs who work there. I find most all of them to be well
meaning, conscientous, aviation oriented people.
The system is broke and we need to get on our elected representatives to get it fixed but,
unfortunately, most of them are lawyers and have very little interest in any improvement.
That doesn’t help answer your question at all, does it? Sorry!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980817 130121 msg04418.tex]

1283
 CHAPTER 8. MISC

McCain
Sun, 5 Mar 2000 18:34:23

In a message dated 3/5/00 5:13:46 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bottom line: McCain is a pilot. Do you think that will make him more or
less sympathetic to pilot’s issues?
-Mark

Does he hold a current medical? Has he ever held a civilian certificate?

He may be a former military aviator, but that doesn’t make him a pilot. Some of the
worst enemies General Aviation has ever had were current or ex military pilots. The
same is true of many airline pilots. The ex military pilots that most of us know are
the ones who are good friends and enthusiastic aviators. The same goes for those of
our airline friends who are active GA pilots. Unfortunately, merely flying for a living
or risking ones life for their country does not equate to having a love of aviation or a
comprehension of aviation’s place in the scheme of things. On the contrary, they often
have the attitude that they know all about those flying machines and those idiots who
fly around in small single engine or single pilot airplanes without a parachute are stark
raving mad and need to be protected from themselves and separated from the public
by massive regulation and restriction. Unfortunately, the unknowing public is likely
to listen to them. That makes someone with an aviation background more dangerous
and likely less sympathetic to our needs than a person with absolutely no knowledge of
aviation.
Still hoping for and wishing all,
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000305 183423 msg04266.tex]

1284
CHAPTER 8. MISC

Metric Compass
Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:17:57

Good Morning All,

Last night I responded to a post concerning the use of a Metric Compass. I want to
assure all that I have never heard of such a thing!
I trust that the possibility of the development of such a device is as much of a spoof as
I think it to be!
Actually, I rather like the old mariners notation of Nor’ by Nor’east and such! Wouldn’t
that be cool? ”Bonanza 20318 this is Chicago center, turn to starboard, new heading
South by East, traffic showing up two points off the port bow, should past well abeam
on your new course.”
Happy Skies,
Old Bob Would be Ancient Mariner
[ARTICLES/19991029 021757 msg09805.tex]

1285
 CHAPTER 8. MISC

Metric Compass
Thu, 28 Oct 1999 22:52:02

In a message dated 10/27/99 11:05:59 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Blue Skies, Buz

PS - By the way, what is the latest on the new Metric Compass? When will
the prototype be out and when will the FAA require it in our airplanes?

Good Evening Buz,

Great hearing from you again. I haven’t seen the prototype Metric Compass yet, but I
understand that some of the European States want it to be 0 to 250 in each direction
rather than 500 degrees for the full circle. Kind of like some of the old European
compasses had East and West bearings of 0 to 180.
I think it should go all of the way around similar to the way our current 360 degree
compasses work. It’s going to take enough time to learn to turn to 125 degrees for East
rather than 90 without having to introduce the problem of East and West bearings as
well!
I guess they don’t care much about what I think though! We found that out when they
forced the METAR stuff on us didn’t we?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991028 225202 msg09799.tex]

1286
CHAPTER 8. MISC

Misc
Mon, 17 Aug 1998 12:19:20

Good Afternoon All,

1.) Just to jump into the fray, I am an unemployed airline pilot. If any of you have a
747 you would like to be checked out in, or if you want it ferried somewhere, give me a
call!
2.) I agree strongly with Tom Turner’s message that we need to get our children and
grandchildren involved early in the game. My wife and I have five children who all soloed
gliders on their fourteenth birthdays and airplanes on their sixteenth. I won’t say there
was any pressure, BUT!
3.) I have a 1978 V35B and dearly love it.
4.) In case you haven’t noticed, I am enamored of the Magic of the GPS.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980817 121920 msg04410.tex]

1287
 CHAPTER 8. MISC

Now They Are Shooting At Us!

Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:55:09

In a message dated 11/8/99 11:24:08 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

At one of our BPPPs, one of the airplanes got shot ... we think down by
San Marcos.
Looked like a 30-06 up thru the wing just outside of the fuel tank.
The pilot was unaware anything had happened.
Bill Hale

Many, many years ago, a friend was flying his Bonanza on final to Runway 25 at Rock-
ford, Illinois, when he heard a slight thump which seemed to be to his right. Upon
landing, the right gear collapsed. The landing gear lift leg had been damaged by what
appeared to be a 30.06 slug.
I believe it was at Dayton, but it might have been Columbus, Ohio, there was a rash
of bullet holes found in DC-6 and Constellation aircraft that were landing on a certain
runway. The local authorities finally caught the culprit. He just didn’t like the airplanes
flying over his house at night and that was when he was shooting them!
In 1949, I was washing a Navion following a charter trip to Springfield, Missouri. As
I moved the airplane, I heard something rattle in the fuselage. Further investigation
revealed a hole in the right rear wing fairing, a corresponding hole in the fuselage and a
bump on the top of the fuselage lined up with the other two holes. When I retrieved the
slug from the rear fuselage, it appeared to be a twenty two. I had flown to Springfield
IFR, but the return had been scud running beneath a four to five hundred foot ceiling.
I rather imagine some moonshiner thought I was looking for his still!!
I guess folks have been shooting at us for a long time!
In the context of our recent conversation about flight at minimum legal altitudes, I
suppose this would be one more vote for the ”keeping it high” side!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991108 125509 msg10321.tex]

1288
CHAPTER 8. MISC

Portable Oxygen Systems

Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:08:14

In a message dated 2/11/01 8:09:05 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:
Among other things:

All OX is the same. I’m using welders OX in my airplane.

Good Evening All,

This statement is true, today, but it wasn’t always that way.
The specifications for Welders Oxygen, Medical Oxygen and Aviators Breathing Oxygen
are all different.
Nowadays, all Oxygen that is supplied to all users comes from the same source and is
identical.
However If you have oxygen which only meets the minimum specification for Medical
use, or the minimum specification for Aviators Breathing Oxygen, you cannot use it for
welding.
The specifications for welding are the most severe.
Welding Oxygen can be used for medical purposes and for Aviators Breathing Oxygen,
but not the other way around!
Years ago, when the purification equipment slipped a little, they would stop filling
welding tanks and just fill medical and ABO tanks until the quality got back up to
welding standards.
Fortunately, it is all the same today. Even the hospitals and we aviators get as good
oxygen as the welders have always had!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010211 220814 msg03562.tex]

1289
 CHAPTER 8. MISC

Roger vs. Wilco

Sat, 3 Mar 2001 11:52:44

In a message dated 3/3/01 10:28:46 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

What’s the difference between Roger and Wilco?

Roger was the phonetic word used for an R during WWII.

The R was used to let the transmitting party know you had received and understood
his message.
When using Morse code, only the ”R” would be transmitted. When voice became
common, the phonetic version of ”R” was used.
It’s meaning and recommended usage changed a few times during the war depending on
the whims of the various commanding officers, but is currently most commonly accepted
as meaning about the same as the original use.
Wilco is short for Will Comply. In the days of code, it was generally sent as ”WC.”
Some of the early radio operators would send it in voice as Whiskey Charlie, but it
became more commonly used as wilco. That use was discouraged by some authorities
and it was considered very bad practice to say: Roger, Wilco, Over and Out.
Most authorities felt that the simple ”Roger” conveyed the entire meaning of the rest of
the statement.
As in so many things, It Depends!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010303 115244 msg05093.tex]

1290
CHAPTER 8. MISC

Single Pilot Operation

Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:29:19

In a message dated 6/7/00 7:43:26 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

BTW, most jet drivers think very little of single pilot ops. After flying the
Lear, I can see why. Its doable, but only if you’re very very good, and if
the aircraft systems are simple.

Good Morning Mike,

I am sure you enjoyed the Lear, it is quite a hot rod!
I wonder, though, about your statement concerning what most jet drivers would say.
I agree that most of them would probably affirm your statement, but is that really
pertinent to the operation we are discussing?
During the time that I was a gainfully employed aviator, at least eighty percent of my
compatriots would tell me that they thought anybody who flew IFR single pilot in any
airplane without a parachute strapped to their tail was stark raving mad!
I did find that many of those same pilots would later buy a small airplane. They almost
always said it would be flown only in good, day, VFR conditions. Over a few years, most
of them flew at night and IFR just like the rest of us ”stark raving mad” GA enthusiasts.
I had several friends who started out with a twin because they didn’t trust one engine
even in the daytime.
Many of those eventually ended up with a Bonanza or similar high performance single
engine machine.
I don’t know whether we rationalize our decision due to the rapture of the GA scene or
find that the benefits to be derived are truly worthy of the risk involved, but somehow
there are still a bunch of us who get in those little single pilot machines and go punch
holes.
So what is the point I am trying to make?
Just because a lady or gentleman is making a living flying a jet airplane doesn’t make
he or she an expert on operating single pilot in anything!
I am not type rated in the Lear, but I did fly a couple of segments once in a Model
24. It was without a doubt, one of the busiest airplanes I ever flew, WHEN ON THE
GROUND!
The pre-takeoff checklist was as comprehensive as any machine I ever flew. All of the
stick pushers and stuff that had to be added to that little Swiss fighter by Bill Lear before
it became a successful piece of corporate transportation make it a very complicated unit.

1291
 CHAPTER 8. MISC

It was, however, the first of it’s kind. Many advancements have been made in the last
forty years since Bill tried to make that little bugger a single pilot machine.
Once the Lear is airborne, it, like most jets, is a babycarriage to fly. The newer machines
are even easier. Whether an airplane has a jet engine or a piston engine is not the issue.
The Jet Engine just makes a sophisticated airplane easier and simpler to operate than
the same sophistication piston engine aircraft.
In my own experience, I find that the Late D model and early E model Twin Beech
machines are the busiest single pilot airplanes that I have ever flown. But look at all
of the kids who managed to haul the night freight in a bunch of old poorly maintained
dogs while they were building time to move on to something better.
After a reasonable amount of training, most Twin Beech owners seem to be able to do
a pretty good job of getting their comfortable machines where they want to go.
I also have a fair amount of time in a 58P Baron. That is as busy as the Twin Beech,
but much easier to land! The engines are easier to operate, but it has pressurization
which adds to the workload.
The King Air is a MUCH easier airplane to fly single pilot than the 58P, yet I’ll bet that
most professional pilots flying a King Air will tell you that it really needs a two man
crew.
Would you listen to those who are being paid to fly that two man machine or to the
many wealthy owners who regularly do fly their King Airs single pilot?
The King Air, with all of it’s automatic systems, modern engineering and those very
reliable easy to operate turbo prop engines, is one of the easiest airplanes to fly that I
have ever flown.
Anyone who has even reasonable competency in a Bonanza would find it easy to tran-
sition to a King Air. The engine is easier to operate and the airplane is even easier to
fly than the mighty Bonanza.
The only thing that I could think of to make a King Air easier to fly would be to
eliminate the problems associated with a propellor. That is what happens with a jet!
Pressurization is the single thing that the Eclipse or similar airplanes will present as a
complication to the single pilot operation. Even then, the modern pressurization units
are much more reliable and simpler to operate than were early systems.
I would hazard a guess that the Eclipse and Safire will be MUCH easier to operate than
a Malibu or a Baron 58P.
It is hard to believe that such a machine could be built and sold for 775 or 800 thousand
bucks, but if it is, it should be an easy to fly single pilot machine.
Jet engines do nothing but make any airplane easier to operate. Tricycle gear is always
easy to handle. Wing loading determines runway length. It takes just as much skill to
put a J-3 Cub in a 600 foot strip as it does to plant a 747 on a 6500 foot one.

1292
CHAPTER 8. MISC

If the little jets are built and certified for balanced field lengths of 2500 feet or so, that
makes them easier and safer than any of the 400 series Cessnas and most of the Barons.
All twin engine aircraft introduce a different set of options than are available in a single
engine machine.
The almost center line thrust of the Little Jets should make the decision easier and they
will undoubtedly be certified to operate only under balanced field length conditions.
They will therefore be intrinsically safer to operate than any of our current light twins,
including the King Air.
Don’t let the professional jet ”drivers” influence you unduly, talk to a jet ”aviator”
instead.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob (Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator)
[ARTICLES/20000607 102919 msg09234.tex]

1293
 CHAPTER 8. MISC

Solo
Tue, 2 Jan 2001 12:41:44

In a message dated 1/2/01 10:55:14 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

So what are the parameters here? PIC or just riding in an airplane?

Thanks, this is more fun than lawsuits. Barry

Well, I didn’t solo until May of 1946, but pumped gas, washed airplanes and such for
rides for a couple of years before that.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010102 124144 msg00111.tex]

1294
CHAPTER 8. MISC

Twin Beech Society

Wed, 3 Sep 1997 09:12:53

Hi Jeff,
I am not currently an 18 owner but my youngest son has one. It is really a lot of fun
and a great airplane.
If you are not yet a member of the Twin Beech Society division of the Staggerwing
Museum Foundation, you should sign up soon.
There is another model 18 group called the Twin Beech Association.
Both groups are dedicated to keeping the 18s flying and preserving the information
available. My son and I belong to both.
Twin Beech Society
P.O. Box 550
Tullahoma, TN 37388
Phone: 615 455-1974
Fax: 615 455-2577

Twin Beech Association

P.O. Box 8186
Fountain Valley, CA 92728
Phone: 714 964-4864
FAX: 714 964-5834

Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19970903 091253 msg01634.tex]

1295
 CHAPTER 8. MISC

Use of Broker
Fri, 8 Aug 1997 02:54:29

To the Saunders,
Have you considered using a broker to find the airplane that is just right for you?
They usually charge about five percent of the purchase price and if you are not an expert
yourself it might be money well spent. Just like getting a real estate agent to help you
buy a house.
I don’t know any to recommend right now but surely someone must have a contact.
Happy hunting,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970808 025429 msg01496.tex]

1296
CHAPTER 8. MISC

Use of Broker
Mon, 8 Sep 1997 15:57:07

Hi once again,
I strongly agree with Rays suggestion to tie up with a GOOD broker. They can save
you a lot of grief.
Lee Larsen has an excellent background and reputation.
I’m sure there are others, ask around your area.
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970908 155707 msg01697.tex]

1297
 CHAPTER 8. MISC

Use of Broker
Sun, 16 Nov 1997 10:52:13

In a message dated 97-11-16 10:06:10 EST, you write:

As a first time buyer, what are the pros and cons of using a broker for
purchase?

I think that ESPECIALLY for the first time buyer a broker is a good idea. I haven’t used
one for several years and am not familiar with current rates, but it used to be around
5 % of purchase price. I would think costs of title search, prepurchase etc. would be
additional costs. I would highly recommend Lee.
Yours,
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19971116 105213 msg02395.tex]

1298
CHAPTER 8. MISC

Wisdom
Sun, 16 Nov 1997 07:33:45

Hi Larry of Tulsa,
In a message dated 97-11-16 07:21:26 EST, you write:

Am really looking forward to purchasing my dream plane, a V-tail.

My what an intelligent person you are!!

Bob
[ARTICLES/19971116 073345 msg02390.tex]

1299
 CHAPTER 8. MISC

Young Pilots
Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:30:41

In a message dated 1/2/01 11:27:36 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Do not allow your kids to touch the yoke. UNDER ANY CIRCUM-
STANCES. Treat it like it is a forbidden fruit. ”No! Not until you are
old enough!” ”How old is that?” ”At least 16 before you can touch the
controls.... ”

Good Morning George and All,

I don’t know what it takes to instill a friendly feeling for aviation in our youngsters, but
I can tell you how we handled our progeny.
Thelma Jean and I have five children. In order of delivery, boy, boy, girl, boy and
another girl.
All five soloed a glider on their fourteenth birthday and all five soloed an airplane on
their sixteenth birthday.
The boys all obtained their instrument tickets during their seventeenth year.
The oldest boy was seventeen when he got his instructor rating, number two was sixteen
and the youngest got his instructor rating, along with his private glider certificate, on
his sixteenth birthday. He added the airplane instructor rating on his seventeenth.
Unfortunately, the FAA then changed the rules. You now must be eighteen to be a flight
instructor.
As an aside, when I obtained my instructor rating, the minimum age was also eighteen,
but in a rewrite of the regulations in the early fifties, they eliminated the age requirement
for an instructor rating. You either had to have a Commercial or hold a Private Pilot
Certificate and meet the skill, knowledge and experience requirements of a Commercial
Pilot to gain the instructor rating. That was the provision under which our boys obtained
their instructor certificates.
The boys are all still active pilots. All have instructor and instrument ratings and own
airplanes.
Neither of the girls are active pilots. They both still evidence a strong interest and often
state that they wish they had stayed with it. Somehow, we failed to instill the same
drive toward flying in the girls as the boys.
The oldest daughter had a Private and was doing well on her quest for the instrument
ticket when she met the boy she later married. She would take him for rides in the
airplane and he seemed to accept aviation OK, but our daughter slowly stopped flying,
married and started a family.

1300
CHAPTER 8. MISC

The youngest girl had some physical problems which caused her to stop flying
So I guess we had a sixty percent success rate!
I still don’t have any idea why people fly, but I THINK the important thing is that they
have fun doing it.
Some folks can do a good job of rationalizing the expense by using the airplane for
business or as a great transportation tool for the family, but if it isn’t fun, very few will
keep on flying regardless of the utility.
I felt that the early indoctrination helped with our children. I let them fly when they
were sitting on my lap. I would have them place their feet in my hands and when they
needed rudder, they would press on my hand and I would apply a commensurate amount
of rudder.
I think that waiting till a child is sixteen is too late. Cars and girls/boys have, by then,
gained the upper hand.
Glider flying is the answer that we chose. The involvement at the glider field was fun,
even when not flying. They got to drive the vehicles that towed the gliders around
the glider field, run the wing for takeoff and, in many other ways, be involved in the
operation. By the time they were sixteen, they could bring their friends to the airport
and take them for a ride in a flying machine with NO engine. What a thrill for a sixteen
year old! They weren’t student pilots. They were truly Pilot In Command exercising
their privilege of being entrusted to carry another human being aloft.
Unfortunately, of our ten grandchildren only two have soloed, one has earned the Private
Certificate. There are some younger ones who are currently showing a strong interest
and a couple of the older ones are realizing that they missed something along the way,
so there is still hope!
Well, there I go with another long story with no conclusion. I wish I knew the answer,
but I don’t.
Having fun helps.
I guess it all depends.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010103 103041 msg00186.tex]

1301
 CHAPTER 8. MISC

Portable Oxygen Systems

Thu, 18 Jun 1998 16:55:11

Good Evening Eric Poole,

In a message dated 98-06-15 04:32:42 EDT, you write:

Actually, welding oxygen isn’t required to be tested for the same impurities
that breathing oxygen is. So while welding oxygen is probably perfectly
safe and just as good as medical or aviator’s oxygen, and may be the exact
same thing, it isn’t required to be, so there’s always the chance that a
harmful impurity might be present

I guess this has been beaten to death already and things may be different in different
areas and jurisdictions, however, my local oxygen purveyor tells me that he starts up his
machinery on Monday morning and as the equipment is pumping along he tests for the
required purity. When the output gets relatively clean, he can start filling bottles for
aviator breathing purposes, after a short time the output meets the medical standards
and medical bottles may be filled. Some considerable time later things get good enough
for welding and after that time he fills whatever bottles are there to be filled.
At least at his operation, the cleanest oxygen you can get is the welding stuff!
Most of the time, it will all be at the same standard but if you get your Aviator Breathing
bottle filled early on Monday morning it will be only as pure as required for breathing
and not good enough for welding.
There may well be downline sanitation requirements for the handling of Aviator Breath-
ing Oxygen and Medical Oxygen but it seems as though the quality of the material itself
should be highest with the stuff for welding.
This may be an old wives tale, but it came from the old oxygen purveyor at the place I
purchase my welding and breathing oxygen.
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19980618 165511 msg03191.tex]

1302
Chapter 9

NAV

9.1 NAV-APPROACH

1303
9.1. NAV-APPROACH CHAPTER 9. NAV

Approach Design
Thu, 31 Aug 2000 10:20:49

In a message dated 8/31/00 8:27:56 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

NJ is pretty flat country except in the NW portion where there are few
airports anyway. Higher mins on a localizer might be due to terrain on
the miss. GPS is an advantage there because they have more flexibility in
where they can draw the missed approach. With localizer, the only miss
might be to a VOR on a nearby mountain, which affects MDA.
Mike

Good Morning Mike,

You are definitely in the proper ball park, but there are other complications.
As you are obviously aware, the minima are often affected by the miss. The other thing
which may not be so obvious if you are not a student of the TERPS (which I am Not),
is that there are different requirements for a miss from a localizer approach than from
other non precision approaches!
I have not dug this out myself, but was told by someone who is conversant with such
things that the localizer approaches require a straight ahead segment that is not a
requirement of the other non precision approaches. I asked why this was so and was
informed that it is because the requirements were drawn up by different persons and the
one who wrote the book for localizer approaches did not like immediate turns during
the miss!
Once again, it helps to realize that the basis for the TERPS was a codification of what the
pioneer IFR pilots had found was workable before the FEDs started regulating things.
The later stuff is a result of what a bunch of desk bound pilots and engineers hammered
out at a conference table.
That is one of the reasons that I am totally opposed to the implementation of the ICAO
PAN-OPS in the US National Airspace System. It seems like a good idea to standardize
procedures world wide, but if we do so, the USA will lose a lot of the operational
capability and flexibility that we now enjoy.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000831 102049 msg12873.tex]

1304
CHAPTER 9. NAV 9.1. NAV-APPROACH

Approach Design
Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:45:05

In a message dated 8/31/00 10:21:58 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Can you expand on this a bit?

Thanks...
Jeb

Good Morning Jeb,

I will be happy to try!
There is pressure, not only from the European community, but also from some of our US
airline brethren to adopt PAN-OPS world wide. Obviously, it is easier for international
travelers and operators to only have one set of rules with which they are required to be
familiar.
PAN-OPS is the ICAO version of TERPS.
In almost all cases, it requires greater distance from the field for the obstacle clear zones
and has more adjacent secondary areas and required transition slopes. The biggest
problems are with the non precision approaches.
Very few of the major carriers of the world operate to small unimproved fields that are
so typical of our General Aviation aircraft. The vast majority no longer circle in less
than VFR conditions and most have adopted some sort CANPA (Constant Angle Non
Precision Approach), where the constant angle refers to a steady rate of descent instead
of a series of level flight segments.
We in general aviation are operating in conditions that are a lot closer to what the
airmail pilots were flying in the early thirties. While we have vastly superior navigation
capability and much more reliable equipment, the obstacles are as bad or worse than
they were back then.
Our approach and maneuvering speeds are very close to those used by the DC-3 and
that is the airplane around which the original TERPS were developed. The required
obstacle clear zones are similar to the limits that the working pilots of the thirties had
developed as personal limits, not the limits that some lawyer driven committee felt was
necessary.
If we get stuck with PAN-OPS the minima at airports located in obstacle rich environ-
ments will rise dramatically.
The ones out in the middle of nowhere with no obstacles in sight won’t be affected at
all.

1305
9.1. NAV-APPROACH CHAPTER 9. NAV

Neither will the vast majority of the major airports as they have been cleared of ob-
stacles that will interfere with low minima precision approach capability or had special
procedures developed to allow operations such as the Canarsie lights at Idlewild or the
checkerboard approach at the old Hong Kong airport.
I think that the current TERPS clearance criteria should be maintained and we should
be allowed to tighten up on the slop allowed for poor navigational signals. If we would
take advantage of the greater accuracy of the GPS, now that selective availability has
been deactivated, we should be able to fly as close to an obstacle with a GPS derived
course as with a localizer guided one at least up to, and maybe a little way inside, the
FAF. Once WAAS is accepted, the GPS approach should provide better guidance and
allow flight closer to any obstacle than does any localizer.
I think all of us would prefer the constant angle of descent approach if one is available.
The problem is that such an approach doesn’t work well for minima much above 400
feet, yet many of our smaller airports, and a few pretty big ones, are located in an
environment where six to eight hundred foot MDAs are inevitable.
For a constant angle descent to be viable with the angle at the standard three degrees
of glide slope you would have to have a visibility of around two and a half miles upon
reaching the MDA. If you can’t see the threshold (or high intensity approach lights, if
installed), you must execute the miss. The good old boys of the thirties managed to
handle minima of 800 and one quite well in the DC-3s and we can do it too, if adequately
trained. I would hate to see us lose that flexibility just because such operations are no
longer required for viable airline operations.
Let’s not forget, all of the new approach procedures are airline and automatic flight
driven. I have no doubt that the high tech glass cockpits and flight management com-
puter equipment will filter down into the GA fleet. That is great and I hope I live long
enough to see the stuff available to folks at my income level, but, I think it will be a long
time before that happens and I don’t want to lose the capabilities that we now have.
Even if the FAA had not shot itself in the foot by stupidly declaring that the integrity
of the WAAS would be at the ten to the seventh level, the satellite guidance would not
have given us the capability of having a 200 and a half approach to every runway.
The flight guidance to a point in the sky is only one part of what it takes to make a low
approach.
In addition to getting there safely, we must have clear zones applicable to the category
of aircraft being flown and lighting or other conspicuity devices to aid the pilot in
positioning the aircraft for landing or making the decision to go around. The PAN-
OPS require greater distances for obstacle clearance. We not only don’t need that, but
should be pushing for reduced clearance based on the greater accuracy of the current
GPS signal.
Well, Thanks for letting me start on this convoluted essay. I know I should modify,
organize and refine it, but I just don’t have time. I gotta put my mags back on the
Bonanza and go flying!

1306
CHAPTER 9. NAV 9.1. NAV-APPROACH

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000831 124505 msg12888.tex]

1307
9.1. NAV-APPROACH CHAPTER 9. NAV

Approach Design
Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:11:05

In a message dated 10/2/00 1:11:07 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

The NDB approach at the ”home ’drome” (KHDI) is down because (1)
the NDB died and they aren’t going to fix it, and (2) the Feds have not
flightchecked the approach for over a year. We have authority to fly the
approach as a GPS approach using the NDB 3 approach plate information,
but it is not marked as a GPS approach in any way (it’s on that ”long
list” you’ve talked about). Chattanooga Approach continues to assign the
approach, and I’ve asked the controllers (face to face) about the issues of (2)
above–they shrug their shoulders and say they know, but they’re allowed
to assign the approach to ”/G” airplanes.

Good Afternoon Tom,

As you say, the approach plate is not marked as an overlay, but it is listed as one of the
approved Phase Three approaches by Jeppesen on Terminal Page US-3 dated 1 SEP 00.
It is still in the current database of my IFR approach approved set.
I would say that it is a perfectly usable and legal approach.
I will comment later on the safety of the approach.
As to the lack of a flight check in the last year, I am not sure what the flight check
requirements are these days. I do know that they are using a more flexible schedule now
than the old ’once a year’ criteria, but I don’t know what that schedule is. I think it
depends! Some are checked much more often and others way less. I think ours is being
done every eighteen to twenty months, but I understand they will pick C24 up when
they are in the area for some work at ORD. If they have time left over after doing the
stuff at ORD, they swing down and get ours. They seem be given a fairly flexible time
window in which they can get it done.
I believe they will check your approach within the allocated time frame since it is a
current Phase Three approach, however, that is an assumption, not a known fact!
I have noted that the flight inspection teams are picking up a lot of pretty serious
construction which results in substantially higher minima at many places.
That means that there is a lot of construction going on that the FEDs never find out
about until long after it has been completed and becomes an obstacle for us to hit!
Sooo! It seems that we all should be keeping an eye out for obstacles that are being
built that may impinge upon our minima. Whether or not a tower, tree or building gets
up into our obstacle clear zone is not something the FEDs automatically know about.
At all but the largest fields, the only control on construction is via local building codes.
While there are some requirements as to when the FAA should be advised of potential
hazards, that notification is often not proffered.

1308
CHAPTER 9. NAV 9.1. NAV-APPROACH

The AOPA has an excellent program that encourages local folks to be aware of something
that may lead to encroachment on our use of, or the closure of a runway or an airport.
That ombudsmen approach should be expanded to have someone check to see that the
entire obstacle clear zone for the instrument approach is protected.
At C24, we have managed to stop some tower construction that would have affected
our minima by nipping it in the bud! Nobody is going to do it for us, we have to do it
ourselves.
I would not hesitate to use the GPS approach to your airport, but it would be prudent
to keep an eye out for construction or tree growth which might affect the minima.
Any help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001002 151105 msg14336.tex]

1309
9.1. NAV-APPROACH CHAPTER 9. NAV

Approach Minima
Wed, 16 Feb 2000 20:01:21

In a message dated 2/16/00 5:40:25 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

He said that in recent years, the FAA gave up the charting of obstacles less
than 250 feet. They just assume they will be there.

Good Evening Mike,

I think there may have been some misunderstanding between you and the FED as to
what was being discussed.
The FAA does make some assumptions about the height of various obstacles based on
the length of time it has been since the area was surveyed, but it is a variable amount
with lots of ands, ifs and buts.
The basic minima for the MDA on all non-precision approaches is 250 feet above the
touchdown zone. That is increased by the height of the obstacles in the approach zone
to which are added any fudge factors due to out of date surveys and the result is moved
up to the next highest twenty foot increment. That becomes the MDA.
The lowest MDA for any non-precision approach in the USA that I am aware of is 263
feet above the touchdown zone. If there was to be 250 feet added to all approaches as a
fudge factor, there would be no approaches with a minimum MDA below 500 feet above
the touchdown zone.
For any non-precision approach, whether the MDA is listed as 2000 feet above the TDZ
or 280 feet above the touch down zone, there is likely to be an obstacle within 250 feet
of your aircraft somewhere during the approach.
I would suggest that it is inadvisable for anyone to ever assume that there is a fudge
factor built in to any approach procedure. That is why they are called Minimum Descent
Altitudes.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000216 200121 msg03057.tex]

1310
CHAPTER 9. NAV 9.1. NAV-APPROACH

Approach Trivia
Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:12:28

Hi All,
This is just a little effort to fill Sunday afternoon.
Over the last four years I have been involved with getting an instrument approach
approved for our little flying field. This brought me into a closer contact with the
TERPS manual than I had ever had before.
Some things which I probably should have known but didn’t.
Note: This is based on my copy of the TERPS which has a publication date of 1993.
The lowest possible minima for ANY Non-precision approach is a 250 foot ceiling with
1/2 mile visibility.
If it is an NDB incorporating a Final Approach Fix, the lowest possible minima is a 300
foot ceiling with 3/4 mile visibility. If the approach contains no FAF, then the lowest
possible NDB approach minima is 350 feet and 3/4 mile vis.
The lowest possible circling minima is 300 feet.
That knowledge has set me on a quest for what ARE the lowest minima approved in
the US for various non-precision approaches.
I’ve looked through a couple of my Jepp manuals but certainly not the entire set. I
wonder if any of you have come across any lower ones than I have found.
This is what I have so far:
Rock Springs Wyoming, VOR/DME Rwy 9 (Jepp 13-1), 263’ & 3/4 mi.
Rock Springs Wyoming, VOR/DME Rwy 27 (Jepp 13-2), 280’ & 1/2 mi.
Rapid City South Dakota, NDB Rwy 32 (Jepp 16-1) 342’ & 3/4 mi. This one incorpo-
rates a FAF.
Rapid City also has a VOR or GPS approach to Rwy 32 with minima of 282’ & 1/2
mile but Rock Springs beats that handily.
The lowest circling minima I have found is at Rock Springs. 360 feet with 1 mile visibility
on three of the approaches for we who operate below 90 knots.
I would appreciate anyone sending me information on any non-precision approaches
lower than these and am especially anxious to find out what the lowest NDB without a
FAF is. I’ve yet to find one below 400 feet.
Thank you,
Bob Siegfried

1311
9.1. NAV-APPROACH CHAPTER 9. NAV

[ARTICLES/19971123 151228 msg02473.tex]

1312
CHAPTER 9. NAV 9.1. NAV-APPROACH

Approaches Minima
Wed, 16 Feb 2000 15:14:13

In a message dated 2/16/00 1:37:05 PM Central Standard Time, beech [email protected]

writes:

I noticed many years ago that it’s not unusual for an RNAV approach to
have higher minima than a VOR approach to the same runway. I always
though this is somehow part of the TERPS criteria, and never questioned
it.

Good Afternoon John,

That was true with the old style VOR DME based RNAV approaches. They had to
consider all of the reception problems from the base VOR DME units used for the
approach as well as the basic TERPS obstacle clearance criteria.
The new style RNAV approach is a different breed of cat. You will notice that they are
not approved for the old KNS-80 style of unit. You must have a Flight Management
Computer style device with the waypoints loaded. For we low end GA types, the only
thing currently available which meets the criteria for the new approaches is the TSO
C129 (a) (1) GPS category of equipment.
The GPS meets or exceeds the Required Performance Standards for almost all of the
approaches currently conducted under the non-precision design criteria of TERPS. It
is therefore reasonable to expect that a GPS approach drawn to those same criteria
and considering the same obstacle clearance requirements will have the same or lower
minima.
Unfortunately, for the last year or so the FAA has been drawing approaches that were
designed to accommodate a constant angle of descent procedure. Sort of a pseudo glide
path sort of thing.
Now I like an ILS as much as anyone and if one is available, that would be my choice.
The fly in the ointment is that there are many airports around the country that are
located in obstacle environments where a properly drawn non precision approach with
judiciously placed step down altitudes can provide a lower approach minima than can
an ILS!
Unfortunately when that ILS style criteria is applied to the obstacle plane at those
airports, we end up with an approach with an artificially high minima. For the Air
Carriers, it is probably a good idea. 747s don’t really circle all that well and the crews
don’t get much practice at it anyway.
We GA types can utilize the level fight segment with step down style approaches quite
handily and to good advantage. It bothers me to see all of the new approaches being
drawn that don’t utilize the well proven tools of TERPS to best advantage. They are
effectively raising the minima at which we will be required to abandon an approach

1313
9.1. NAV-APPROACH CHAPTER 9. NAV

without out any public hearings or input from the users.

Bad Scene!!
Thanks for the comment, I was beginning to think that no one had read the message!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000216 151413 msg03040.tex]

1314
CHAPTER 9. NAV 9.1. NAV-APPROACH

Approaches under a MOA

Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:14:36

In a message dated 10/2/00 11:49:44 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

We are under a MOA! To my dismay, airports under a MOA cannot have

instrument approaches. The single exception is Inyo-Kern, which has a
unique corridor and approach through the MOA.
Until we get enough political clout to cause our USAF brethren to redraw
the western edge of the MOA, we are VFR only.

Good Morning Bill,

You know, I had never thought about the problems involved getting an approach at an
airport within the boundaries of a MOA.
At our last Edwards briefing, we were told about the Inyokern corridor, but I note that
Inyokern has no approach listed by Jeppesen and they don’t show the corridor on the
enroute chart. I wonder if Jepp is just late getting the data out or if it is some sort of a
private deal?
Of course, Mojave does have an approach and there is no corridor going to it!
Yoakum, Texas, is located within the confines of Randolph One which has a floor of
9000 feet. De Ridder, Louisiana, is inside Warrior Three Low which has a floor of 100
AGL. I am sure there are many other examples around the country where the locals
have been able to convince the powers that be that they needed IFR access.
I think you have hit the nail right on the head. The most important thing is the political
muscle available to get the approach drawn by the Feds and accepted by the military.
From my very little military association, I note that they seem to fight a lot harder to
gain or retain airspace than we do to be allowed to fly in that airspace.
Tehachapi’s location right on the west edge of Isabella and next to Bakersfield (MOA
that is) seems to be one where justification for IFR access through the MOAs would be
relatively easy to develop. Plus, there are airports in much more hostile obstacle fields
than yours that have IFR approaches.
Looks like getting that approach would be a good project for you to spearhead. I was
the point man for our group when we obtained our instrument approach. It isn’t all
that hard, but it does take time!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001003 081436 msg14381.tex]

1315
9.1. NAV-APPROACH CHAPTER 9. NAV

DH vs. MDA
Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:35:18

In a message dated 2/21/01 9:54:44 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

To Pete and all - I thought that you should never go below MDA. I know
DH is lower than MDA, but I thought that the decision occurred at DH.
If that is true - (with a bit of caution do I say this) - is it not true that
we will always bust DH on the go around? (How’s that for being a trouble
maker?)
Steve

Good Evening Steve,

Since the aircraft is in a descent at the DA(H) and that is the point at which the decision
to continue or start the missed approach, it is physically impossible for the aircraft to
not go below the listed altitude. I am not sure exactly what amount of sink through is
currently allowed.
You will find many FAA inspectors at the local FSDOs who will tell you that no allowance
is made and that the missed approach should be started soon enough that the aircraft
will not descend below the DA(H).
That is definitely in error, but I personally don’t want to argue with them!
Where it really counts, at a hearing following an incident, the folks that really know will
confirm that such a sink through is expected.
As I said before, I don’t know what the current limits are, but in the early sixties, when
we were qualifying for Category II (one hundred foot DA(H) with a visibility minima of
one quarter mile), it was not disqualifying if the aircraft actually touched the runway
during the go around.
I have seen figures published recently which indicate that the average sink through for an
aircraft such as the 757 or 767 is around twenty-five to thirty-five feet. I would imagine
that Ralph Requa and John Deakin will have more current data than do I.
Modern jet aircraft have a much better spoolup time than did the equipment we were
flying when CAT II was first introduced.
The side slope and vertical slope clearances are all such that proper clearance will still
be maintained even though the aircraft does go through the DA(H). After all, if the
airplane were to continue on course and on glideslope it wouldn’t hit anything before
touchdown. That is what happens on a CAT III approach when the guidance is good
enough for such an approach. If the missed approach is started at the DA(H) and flown
as per the published miss, the aircraft will be OK on the side clearances and above the
required glide path zone even if it does contact the runway during the miss.

1316
CHAPTER 9. NAV 9.1. NAV-APPROACH

I have never flown an approach, nor been on an airplane, when it contacted the runway
during a go around, but I have heard of it happening during training in the Caravelle.
It had a very slow spool up time. If the throttles were closed and the engines spooled
down, it took fourteen seconds to get the engine up to full power. There was almost no
thrust until about eight seconds, about fifty percent power at ten to eleven seconds and
seventy-five percent at twelve to thirteen seconds.
Incidentally you state ”I know DH is lower than MDA.”
The two are not directly comparable.
On all non precision approaches, the required obstacle clearance is 250 feet. The height
of the MDA above the TDZ or the airport is a function of the obstacles in the approach
zone.
The minima on an ILS, or other precision approach with a glideslope, is a function of the
distance to the runway and the height of the touchdown zone modified by the sloping
obstacle clear zone. When the airplane is at a 200 foot height above the TDZ it may
be as close as 100 feet to an obstacle. Most approaches nowadays have better clearance
than that, but the older approaches could still be using that criteria.
As always, It Depends!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010221 233518 msg04351.tex]

1317
9.1. NAV-APPROACH CHAPTER 9. NAV

GPS/ADF Approaches
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:27:49

In a message dated 1/22/01 5:13:50 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Given the above information and the original question, would the fact that a
portion of the ground based equipment is not functional make the approach
unusable? Would ATC not issue clearance for that approach due to that
problem. I understand the functionality of the GPS replacing DME and
ADF in the aircraft, however this does not deal with the component out
issue. Obviously non GPS equipped aircraft would not be able to comply
due to no NDB for this particular approach.
Possibly I should attach a copy of the approach I am asking about.

Good Evening Carter,

Thanks, but I do have a copy of the approach and did look at it before I wrote the
previous answer.
The FAA strongly states that the ground equipment does NOT have to be operable for
the GPS to be used in lieu thereof.
It would be possible that some controller might tell you that the approach was unavail-
able due to the ground equipment being inoperative. I believe, in fact I am sure, that
you could tell him/her politely that you do have equipment on board which can be
legally substituted for the ADF requirement factor of the approach and, if clearance was
obtained, you would be legal to shoot the approach and execute the miss via the GPS
if a miss became necessary.
Unfortunately, not all of the FAA folks, including some of the FSDO Inspectors are
aware of that fact.
Any help?
Happy Skies.
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010122 182749 msg01483.tex]

1318
CHAPTER 9. NAV 9.1. NAV-APPROACH

LNAV Approach
Wed, 16 Feb 2000 15:33:02

In a message dated 2/16/00 1:37:05 PM Central Standard Time, beech [email protected]

writes:

Something about ”LNAV”. What’s LNAV?

Hi John,
Sorry I skipped over this question, I am so bent out of shape about what they are doing
to our approaches that I just passed it by!
Jeppesen’s Briefing Bulletin DEN 00-A covers it completely. That came with revision
02-00. I will try to hit the high spots. The new RNAV approaches are designed to
supersede the current GPS approaches as well as provide criteria and guidance for glass
cockpit generated approaches.
There are three basic minima associated with each approach.
The first is similar to an ILS and is called the GLS PA. That will require all of the ILS
style ground equipment and an augmented satellite based navigation system.
The next is a constant angle of descent approach which has slightly higher minima and
may or may not require extraordinary lighting systems but which will require some
sort of baro augmented or other wise modified signal in addition to those provided via
satellite. That is called the VNAV approach.
The lowest rung of the ladder (highest minima) is for all of we unwashed masses.
That is similar to our current GPS approach. It is called LNAV for Lateral Navigation.
There is no vertical guidance provided other than altimetry and that is based on what
we see on the panel, not fed to the navigation box.
Does that help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000216 153302 msg03041.tex]

1319
9.1. NAV-APPROACH CHAPTER 9. NAV

NDB Approach Design

Tue, 7 Mar 2000 06:49:20

In a message dated 3/6/00 6:16:13 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Does anyone out there know how NDB approaches are designed? How
much off-course can one be to be assured obstacle clearance? How much
error off-course would drive you to abandon the approach? Recognizing of
course that it can be a little tricky with separate ADF and DG to figure
out exactly how far off course the instruments say you are, even if the
ADF were an accurate instrument, where do you set your personal decision
points (those of you who opt to fly these approaches at all, that is!)
Bill Hall

Good Morning Bill,

First the disclaimer!
I am no expert, just an interested observer!
The TERPS, Terminal Instrument Procedures is the document that spells out the re-
quirements for obstacle clearance for all approaches in the U. S. National Airspace
System, NAS. Most of the rest of the world use criteria established by ICAO which they
refer to as PANOPS. There are differences between it and the US standard. In many
cases, lower minima and thus less clearance from obstacles is required by the TERPS.
On top of that, there is considerable interpretation possible in the application of TERPS
to any approach. As in so many other situations involving government activity, there is
an interpretations manual which the FAA folks responsible for drawing the approaches
use, that is not easily available to we mere mortals. There is also a provision in the
TERPS which allows a waiver of the guidance rules if it can be shown to provide adequate
safety and provide substantial benefit.
My copy of the TERPS is seven years old. The latest information is available on the
web, but I am a computer illiterate and not capable of retrieving that information.
I am told it can be found at http://terps.faa.gov/ know how to find such things!
According to my seven year old copy, VOR and ADF procedures are drawn using the
same obstacle clearance criteria, then additional restrictions are placed on the ADF
approach.
A trapezoid is constructed with a center line based on the course to be flown and with
bases determined by the type of approach and the segments thereof. That establishes
a primary zone. Another zone, the secondary, is established to the side and it’s width
varies according to it’s distance from the guidance source. The obstacle clearance in the
secondary varies with the distance from the primary zone.

1320
CHAPTER 9. NAV 9.1. NAV-APPROACH

The size of the trapezoids is a variable that depends on the source of the navigational
signal, the course, the distance to or from the navigational source and the segment of
the approach being flown.
You ask: ”How much off-course can one be to be assured obstacle clearance? How much
error off-course would drive you to abandon the approach?”
As you can see, the answer depends on many factors. The approach category of the
aircraft being flown has to be considered. Even the turbulence and wind conditions
prevalent would enter into the decision.
The closest that you could ever be to an obstacle to one side or the other is one mile.
That would be a very rare case.
The obstacles that are likely to be to the side and your distance from them is dependent
on the size of those trapezoids.
One constant factor pertinent to all of the approaches is the possibility that somewhere
under that primary obstacle clear zone for the approach segment is an obstacle which is
two hundred and fifty feet below the MDA. That is true whether you are flying a 747 or
a Piper Super Cub on a Localizer approach, an ADF approach or any other nonprecision
approach.
You further ask: ”Recognizing of course that it can be a little tricky with separate ADF
and DG to figure out exactly how far off course the instruments say you are, even if
the ADF were an accurate instrument, where do you set your personal decision points
(those of you who opt to fly these approaches at all, that is!)”
The ADF and the magnetic compass can be very accurate instruments, if they are
properly mounted and properly compensated.
Whether or not I would fly an ADF approach would depend on my knowledge of the
accuracy of my compass, the accuracy of my ADF and the style of ADF approach.
If all of the components are within the desired specifications, I would fly the approach
to the minima published. Those approaches have served very well for over sixty years.
I figure they will still do the job for a while yet.
Incidentally, In Europe and in times past here in the USA, ADF approaches have been
designed which were meant to be used with dual ADF equipment. By having two ADFs
pointing to two different NDBs, the requirement for an accurate compass and even some
of the installation error of the ADF can be eliminated. If both needles are on the same
instrument, the approach can be flown so that one needle is always lined up with the
other and a straight course ensues. It is/was called marrying the needles. Worked like
a charm when we had both inner and outer locators on an approach!
In summary, if your equipment is in good operating order and properly calibrated, flying
an ADF approach to the minima published has an equivalent safety level to any other
approach.

1321
9.1. NAV-APPROACH CHAPTER 9. NAV

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000307 064920 msg04359.tex]

1322
CHAPTER 9. NAV 9.1. NAV-APPROACH

NDB Approach Design

Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:05:42

In a message dated 3/7/00 5:53:49 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

One constant factor pertinent to all of the approaches is the possibility

that somewhere under that primary obstacle clear zone for the approach
segment is an obstacle which is two hundred and fifty feet below the MDA.
That is true whether you are flying a 747 or a Piper Super Cub on a
Localizer approach, an ADF approach or any other nonprecision approach.

Good Morning Bill,

When I wrote this paragraph in my answer to your ADF questions, I neglected to insert
the differences pertaining only to the ADF approach which are applied to the approach
after all other considerations for a nonprecision approach are considered.
For an approach where the NDB is located on the airfield, an additional 100 feet is
added to the minimum obstacle height found by application of the TERPS criteria
before determining the MDA. For an NDB approach where the facility is off the field,
the addition is only fifty feet. I have no idea why or how this adjustment was determined
to be required. In any case, you should never be closer to an obstacle than three hundred
feet on any ADF approach.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000307 080542 msg04367.tex]

1323
9.1. NAV-APPROACH CHAPTER 9. NAV

NDB Approach Design

Tue, 7 Mar 2000 15:04:14

In a message dated 3/7/00 11:25:54 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Anyone have an idea? If not, I guess I should write Wally Roberts.

– Rich

Good Afternoon Rich,

Writing Wally Roberts is absolutely the right thing to do! Let us all know what he says.
But in the meantime!
As I said earlier I don’t really know, but I have a suspicion that it might be associated
with the history of shooting approaches.
In the late twenties and early thirties, there was no minima established. The pilots
and/or their companies decided whether or not they would fly IFR and if they did so,
how it would be done.
When regulations and procedure were drawn, they tried to make them fit what the
operators had been doing. As the years went by, things got ever more technical and
precise. By the time the fellows in DCA were designing the criteria currently known as
TERPS, they had decided that all of the nonprecision approaches should be built to the
same standards. When that criteria was developed they found that the ADF just didn’t
fit into the overall program. The integrity and verification capabilities were just not
up to the standards they wanted to apply, but the darn thing had an excellent safety
record. The answer was to apply the newly developed TERPS nonprecision criteria
to the obstacle plane for all nonprecision approaches and arbitrarily add some extra
qualifications for the NDB. The minimum visibility requirement was placed at three-
quarters of a mile regardless of the lighting available and an adjustment was made to the
MDA. I suspect that the addition of one hundred feet was what was originally proposed
for all ADF approaches, but I bet the airlines screamed that such an addition was not
appropriate for those approaches which were based on an outer locater associated with
an ILS. Most of the approaches with the NDB at the field were at airports with less
sophisticated approaches and relatively low traffic counts. The compromise was what
we have now. Fifty feet addition for those approaches where the facility is off the field
and one hundred extra feet for the ones with the facility on the field.
All of the above is wild speculation but based on similar things that I have observed
happen in the last fifty-four years of aviation activity.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000307 150414 msg04390.tex]

1324
CHAPTER 9. NAV 9.1. NAV-APPROACH

New Approaches and FAA

Thu, 18 May 2000 07:26:04

In a message dated 5/17/00 3:48:16 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Old Bob and George,

If you have a ”procedure” for getting this done, let the list know and maybe
we can get folks here to take on an airport each. Thanks for your efforts!
Will

Good Morning Will,

The most important thing of all is for someone to show the interest that you have.
I don’t know if it would qualify as a procedure, but I got involved the same way George
did.
We wanted an IFR approach to our little private airport and I was designated as the
person to look into the matter.
The first step I took was to buy a copy of the TERPS. That document can be rather
daunting, but a few hours spent perusing and cross checking can pull out the meat of
the situation that affects your individual operation.
The TERPS information is now available on the web at http://terps.faa.gov/
I then contacted the local FSDO who put me in contact with the appropriate folks at
the FAA Regional office. It took about three years to get everything accomplished.
There were environmental impact statements, obstacle survey procedures, runway envi-
ronment, evaluation of the need and all sorts of details to be covered. Not difficult, but
time consuming.
However, all of that effort is not required if there is an existing approach!
The problem that we see occurring today is one concerning the application of TERPS
to airports that are already in the IFR system. There is an effort to reduce the number
of approach plates that have to be produced, so the FAA has come up with a new con-
solidation technique which will allow more than one type of approach to be presented
on one piece of paper. To accommodate that criteria, they try to establish a FAF and
runway alignment that will serve all approaches built to any individual runway. Unfor-
tunately, that will not always provide the optimum minima for all classes of operators.
Since the system is heavily oriented toward the desires of the aircarrier community, some
approaches that could be very beneficial to we GA types are either not drawn at all or
are compromised drastically to fit the desires of the VNAV and high precision approach
techniques.
There has also been instituted a policy that there will not be more than one GPS
approach drawn to any individual runway and that there will not be step downs between

1325
9.1. NAV-APPROACH CHAPTER 9. NAV

the FAF and the MAP on the LNAV portion of the combo RNAV approach.
If sufficient need and benefit can be shown, multiple GPS approaches can be developed.
Since all of these changes are more associated with policy than with the substance of
the TERPS, contact with the poor souls who are tasked with following the policy is not
as productive as contacting the folks who develop the policy.
That is why I would suggest that AOPA be contacted if you note an increase in minima
that does not appear to be associated with a new obstacle in your airport environment.
This is especially true if a new RNAV approach has a higher minima than an existing
approach.
If you just want a new approach to your airport, I would suggest contacting whatever
entity is controlling the field in question. It helps to have whatever political muscle is
available on your side. After you have all interested parties focused on the same goal,
make the contact with the FAA folks and things should work. As George said, work
with them, but have knowledge of what they can do and how you want things to go
before you start the quest. Almost all of the FAA personnel that I have dealt with are
interested in aviation and are trying to do a good job. However, they are all human and
don’t like to be put in a position where they are shown to be lacking in knowledge in
an area they administer. Give them fair warning of what you want and how you expect
it can be accomplished within the existing regulations. When you present them with
documentation that shows your request is within their guidelines, things generally work
reasonably well!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000518 072604 msg08314.tex]

1326
CHAPTER 9. NAV 9.1. NAV-APPROACH

New Approachs and FAA

Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:52:32

Good Morning All,

The FAA has recently begun to build the next generation of approaches under the name
RNAV.
This is an umbrella criteria that will allow the same checkpoints and course for a non
precision, a semi precision and a very precision approach to the same runway.
They call them the LNAV, LNAV/VNAV and GLS PA respectively.
Sounds like a good idea, doesn’t it?
The problem is that the criteria for the new approach has limits that are wider and more
restrictive than those that we now use.
Not only will the new approaches built at places that don’t currently have approaches
be likely to have higher minima, but approaches that replace an existing device may
have higher MDAs as well.
An example of the problem was published in the last round of approaches which became
effective on June 15, 2000.
There is a Localizer approach to Runway 31 at The Ardmore Municipal Airport, Ard-
more, Oklahoma. It has a visibility requirement of 3/4 of a mile (used to be 1/2, but
more about that later), and a MDA of 348 feet above ground level.
They drew a new RNAV approach using the same inbound course and the same FAF
as the Localizer approach. It has a MDA of 528 feet! That is one hundred and eighty
feet higher than the localizer approach. How did this happen? The trapezoid used to
locate obstacles for the RNAV approach is larger than the figure used for the localizer
approach!
A localizer WILL be more accurate than a non differential GPS at the missed approach
point, due to the convergence of the signal towards the transmitter site, but the GPS
will be more accurate for the vast majority of the approach path.
The localizer protected area is 1.78 miles wide at the FAF, the RNAV is two miles wide
at the same point. Somewhere in that wider area used for the RNAV approach is an
obstacle which raises the LNAV minima 180 feet above the localizer minima. It is over
one hundred and fifty per cent of the localizer MDA!
We need to get busy and see that the FAA revises the criteria used for the new RNAV
approaches to be at least as permissive as the older, less accurate, guidance that we
have been using in the past. If nothing is done, even the new WAAS corrected signals
will be of no avail as the approaches using that signal are planned to be built using the
wider, and in my opinion unnecessarily wider, more restrictive obstacle criteria.

1327
9.1. NAV-APPROACH CHAPTER 9. NAV

Oh, I mentioned the 3/4 mile visibility requirement at Ardmore. It was 1/2 mile for the
ILS and the localizer approach, but something was allowed to be built, or to grow, into
the required 1/34 slope in the visual portion of the approach. That raised the minima
to 3/4 of a mile. It is a shame that no one at Ardmore was monitoring the situation to
prevent that incursion into the approach slope. The FAA doesn’t. They don’t have the
manpower, let alone any directive, to do so. If we users don’t look for such things at
our local airports, no one is going to do it for us.
I hope that all of you will contact your aviation organizations and urge that we get
together and encourage the FAA to adjust the criteria for the new RNAV approaches to
criteria that are more consistent with the safety and operational capability of the new
equipment when compared to the old.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Bob Siegfried Concerned Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/20000616 095232 msg09764.tex]

1328
CHAPTER 9. NAV 9.1. NAV-APPROACH

Non Precision vs. Constant Descent Rate Approaches

Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:26:28

In a message dated 1/18/01 6:00:00 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

PRECISION APPROACHES FOR SMALL AIRPORTS... UPS Aviation

Technologies is working on a GPS-based precision approach system that it
expects to be certified later this year, the company announced last week.
The UPS equipment uses signals from the FAA’s Wide Area Augmentation
System (WAAS) in conjunction with GPS technology to provide pilots
with vertical and horizontal guidance to the runway without the need for
extensive ground-based infrastructure. The system includes a mechanism
for ensuring the integrity of the signal, UPS said, which should satisfy
the FAA’s concerns about the safety of such approaches. If approved, the
equipment could make hundreds of smaller airports accessible in instrument
conditions.

Good Morning Cy,

This announcement from UPSAT is very welcome. Hopefully it will help the FAA extract
itself from the dilemma they created when they announced the 10 to the 7th fiasco.
However, all is not what it seems!
First, Phil Boyer states something along the line that the airlines have shown that the
precision approach is safer than the non precision.
I would think that most of us would accept that on an intuitive basis, but believe
it or not, general aviation has shown a very small statistical advantage in safety on
nonprecision over precision approaches. It may be an anomaly, but we don’t seem to
splatter aircraft more often on the NPAs than we do on the precision ones.
The airlines, however, have a dismal record over the last twenty years or so when at-
tempting traditional non precision approaches. My thoughts as to the reason for this
would take considerable time to develop, so I will leave it alone except to state that
when the airlines where using NPAs regularly, the safety record was excellent.
There is a bigger problem that I see on the horizon with the rush toward electronic glide
path approaches.
The classic ILS approach consists of not only the electronic guidance system, but a few
items which are, at the very least, expensive and which could be almost impossible to
provide.
1. In order to operate to the Category I basic minima of ”200 and a half”, a very
expensive approach lighting system must also be installed.
2. There must be a very flat approach zone devoid of obstacles combined with a similar

1329
9.1. NAV-APPROACH CHAPTER 9. NAV

clear path for the missed approach procedure.

3. The width of the airport landing area clear zone is much greater than that which is
required for non precision approaches
These realties mean that to attain the advantage of a constant rate descent approach
to a two or three hundred foot ceiling it will be required that the airport is located in
a place where there are few (if any) obstacles, the airport will have to spend a lot of
money to provide the lighting required and that it must be located and developed in a
manner that provides a very wide approach area.
The vast majority of small airports to which we GA types particularly like to fly our
personal magic carpets will not support those low minima approaches.
OK you say, we will just continue along with the minima we now have, but will fly a
computer generated glide path down to the NPA MDA instead of descending to the
MDA and flying along looking for the runway.
I think we will all agree that an ILS approach is much easier and more comfortable to
execute than are most NPAs.
The problem is that there are lot’s of times when a classic non precision approach,
which includes a level flight segment, will result in a safe and comfortable landing when
a stabilized descent style approach to those same weather conditions would result in a
missed approach requiring a diversion to an alternate.
Think of it this way.
In a descent to an MDA, action must be taken at some altitude above that minima to
arrest the rate of descent so as to avoid descending below the MDA. The amount of
altitude above the MDA that the round out must be initiated is dependent on a number
of factors, but one common method is to start the maneuver at an altitude above the
MDA equal to ten percent of the rate of descent. For a five hundred foot per minute
rate of descent, the round out would be initiated fifty feet above the minima.
If the constant rate of descent approach is to be treated the same as an ILS, this would
be the start of the missed approach, so you have just added fifty feet to the published
minima!
Now let’s say that the published MDA is 500 feet AG.
Applying a constant rate of descent procedure to that approach environment means that
we now have a DA(H) of 550 AG.
To complete a landing legally from a DA(H) of 550 feet we must have an in-flight
visibility of somewhere around two statute miles depending on the type of, or lack of,
lighting available.
I think we all know of approaches with a minima of 600 and one or so that we find very
comfortable to use.

1330
CHAPTER 9. NAV 9.1. NAV-APPROACH

The glideslope style approach has an advantage where the obstacles are a considerable
distance from the field, but the smaller tunnel where the approach actually is located
will require a lower obstacle field than a nonprecision approach built over the same area
that utilizes maximum angles of descent and step down fixes.
If the obstacles in the area are such that 400 feet is going to be the lowest descent minima
associated with the glide slope style approach, the accompanying visibility minima will
be around a mile and a quarter. The visibility requirement is determined by the distance
to the threshold when the airplane is at the MDA on a glide path of around three degrees.
Not only that, but there will only be a second or two to locate the threshold or other
approved runway environment cues that are required on an approach that uses a DH or
DA. Unless there is some sort of approach lighting, spotting the required cues in that
small amount of time with the actual weather right at the limits will be unlikely.
A light wing loaded, maneuverable airplane, such as a Cessna 182, Bonanza or DC-3,
does very well at the older style of non precision approach. Rates of descent exceeding
400 feet per mile are not difficult, if properly planned for, which makes the minima of one
mile visibility practical for a nonprecision approach with MDAs of five or six hundred
feet, even higher for part 91 operators, depending on the runway length and markings.
When a circling approach is considered, minima of one mile visibility and MDAs of eight
hundred to a thousand feet become very practical. All three of the airplanes listed above
can comfortably fly a downwind at way less than a mile from the field. A descent can
legally be started on the downwind leg for a normal approach and landing, if obstacles
permit, without straying outside of the minimum visibility zone of one mile.
Small and/or remote airfields which are unlikely to qualify for extensive obstacle removal
programs, sophisticated approach lighting and expensive runway markings are not likely
to benefit at all from the glide slope style of approach and may even suffer a significant
loss of IFR capability.
I think all of us would prefer a two hundred and a half glideslope style approach with
full approach lighting at our destination, but if that is not financially practical, I would
prefer that the well proven nonprecision approach minima originally designed around
the capability of the Douglas DC-3 be retained for the benefit of those aircraft which
are capable of making good use of the provisions!
This has been a long one and I wonder if anyone is at all interested.
Any comments, pro or con, would be appreciated so that I might judge whether the
subject is of any interest to anyone but me!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/20010118 122628 msg01160.tex]

1331
9.1. NAV-APPROACH CHAPTER 9. NAV

Non Precision vs. Constant Descent Rate Approaches

Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:55:15

In a message dated 1/18/01 1:22:07 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

If this comes about, a good safe GPS approach should be available for even
a farmers airstrip.

Good Afternoon Cy,

The farmer could have a very low approach, provided he has control of the obstacle
environment and can afford the approach lighting, runway lighting and runway marking
required.
He could have a GPS approach to an unlighted sod field with a MDA 250 feet above the
ground and one mile visibility RIGHT NOW.
Add WAAS, a couple of million dollars worth of improvements such as lights and run-
way markings and his approach minima would drop another fifty feet and the visibility
minima could be lowered another one half mile.
The airborne guidance to the decision point is only one small portion of the package
required.
Don’t get me wrong! I am very pleased with what UPS is doing and I strongly support
the WAAS program. It has the potential of supplying us with much greater accuracy
for all of our navigational needs. That could lead to lower minima IF the FAA nar-
rows the approach zones accordingly. So far, that is not being done nor is it presently
contemplated. There are a few of us who are urging that such a change be made.
I am just fearful that folks are expecting more than what can be delivered by just the
airborne guidance system.
As an example, if there are no obstacles at all in the approach zone and no obstacles
at the landing area, a nonprecision approach to that field can have a MDA as low as
250 feet with the current minima. With no lighting or runway markings, the visibility
minima can be as low as one mile. If sophisticated lighting and markings are provided,
the visibility for a nonprecision approach can be as low as one half mile.
What we currently have has tremendous capability. What pushes the minima up so
high is not the lack of glide path information, it is the proliferation of obstacles in the
approach zone.
The glide path style of approach helps a lot when the obstacles are at some distance from
the landing area, but if the obstacles are in the final approach zone or in the circling
area of the airport, the glide path is of no help at all!
Happy Skies,

1332
CHAPTER 9. NAV 9.1. NAV-APPROACH

Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010118 145515 msg01176.tex]

1333
9.1. NAV-APPROACH CHAPTER 9. NAV

1334
Chapter 10

OPERATE

10.1 OPERATE-ELECTRICAL

1335
10.1. OPERATE-ELECTRICAL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Hung Starter
Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:36:18

In a message dated 8/28/00 10:32:48 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

When the engine starts, one may examine the alternator gauge to verify
that the battery is not discharging (i.e. starter hung).

Good Afternoon Howard,

Check the wiring diagram for your airplane. Most will not show a discharge as the
cranking current is not normally sent through the ammeter shunt.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS I am with you on the desirability of not switching on the alternator or generator
until the engine is started. Modern electronic controls are much better and spikes and
such are not as likely as they were years ago, but it is still nice to check for a nice stable
condition before throwing on the power source. I also like to check for proper voltage
from the power source before I fire up the Avionics Buss.
[ARTICLES/20000828 123618 msg12710.tex]

1336
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

10.2 OPERATE-ENGINE

1337
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Approach ROM - Prop Speed on Approach

Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:15:05

In a message dated 9/1/99 2:31:11 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

It has been said and it is true that at less than 15 inches of manifold
pressure the rpm is not going to change until you have to add power for
the go around (even with the electric prop), so why not have it ready [high
RPM] if you need it. When you have a deer run out on to runway in front
of you it is nice to power up and over him as quick as possible. Yup it has
happened. I go to hi rpm after final power reduction for landing config.

Good Morning,
Your prop is a fixed pitch prop until you decide to press the switch up or down. If you
have the low pitch prop stops set properly, it should not exceed 2300, the allowable rated
RPM for that engine when installed in your straight 35, with full throttle any time you
are at or below 100 mph. If you add that full throttle above 100 mph, you will have to
toggle it down to prevent an overspeed, correct so far?
Now just suppose your aircraft were equipped with one of those new fangled doodads
which attempt to control the RPM for you. I think some folks refer to them as a
governor?
The stops could then be set so that rated RPM could be attained at sixty to seventy
mph with full throttle. If you open the throttle while you are above that speed the
engine will spin up to 2300 and then (not before it reaches 2300) the governor will kick
in and attempt to control the engine RPM to 2300. Since the electric motor makes the
RPM change at the rate of about 80 to 100 RPM per second, There can be a substantial
overspeed before the RPM is brought under control. Been there, done that!
If someone has set the stops on your prop in the manner specified for the governor
equipped aircraft (I can’t imagine anyone doing that, can you?) you would have to
get your thumb on that propellor control switch pretty fast and add the throttle quite
slowly to avoid an overspeed. Now, since I believe you have an E185-11 or -8 installed in
your airframe, an overspeed up to 2550 or so shouldn’t hurt the engine as that RPM is
allowed when it is installed in some airframes. Whether or not there would be a problem
with the propellor would be dependent on which propeller you have. Some of the early
ones were not approved for that much RPM.
The same thing can occur with those odd ball propellors which use oil to change the
pitch instead of electricity like the props on real airplanes do.
If the governor is set for rated RPM while on the approach with reduced manifold
pressure and then a sudden need for full power arises, there will be an overspeed unless
the throttle is advanced rather slowly. The governor only watches the RPM and it will
not take an additional bite of air until it senses that the RPM of the engine has exceeded

1338
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

the rated RPM.

Now we all know that we should move that throttle deliberately and slowly, but do we
always do it?
How about when that deer ran out in front of your airplane?
What would happen if you had the prop governor set for twenty-one or twenty-two
hundred RPM and you shoved in the throttle a little faster than you should?
On most light general aviation aircraft, you would get some overspeed above the RPM
set, but not above the RPM for which the engine is approved. Let’s say that you forgot
completely about the propellor and just climbed out with full throttle and twenty-two
hundred RPM.
Would that harm the engine?
Not likely, though with a moderately lean mixture and the cowl flaps closed it could heat
up to the point where a problem could occur. Remember, we are discussing a normally
aspirated engine not a supercharged one, they are a different animal. Depending on the
type of supercharging system the engine has, full throttle with a lower RPM could lead
to problems.
I like to leave my governor set to cruise RPM for the approach. If I should elect to go
around, I advance the throttle to twenty-five inches or so, move the governor control to
full forward, add the rest of any throttle that might be available, adjust the mixture as
required for the altitude and then open the cowl flaps.
That is what works for me. Like anything else, you should do what you find comfortable.
I know it sounds like the sequence could be a little rushed, but I do not find it to be so
and there is really no big hurry to do any of the steps other than the initial push on the
throttle. Once that is done, the airplane is on it’s way out of town! The rest are just
cleanup items and if practiced regularly, fall to hand comfortably.
They are items that should be checked anytime the power is adjusted.
If you are experiment oriented, set it up with the prop control full forward and shove
the throttle in hard, then try it my way. Either method is acceptable, so use what you
like! Just be careful not to overspeed the engine when you try it with the prop full flat!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990901 101505 msg07708.tex]

1339
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Approach RPM
Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:56:57

In a message dated 2/10/01 9:07:18 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I thought for go around safety this is the thing to do (and it was taught to
me that way a long time ago) - but am I hurting my engine? If yes, what
is the higher priority - being ready for the go around or being careful with
my engine?

Good Morning Steve,

The procedure you are using is acceptable and is consistent with what many authorities
recommend.
We beat this subject up quite a bit a year or two ago, but I will try to throw in my two
cents worth in as few words as possible. (for me, that is)!
If your propellor governor is set to the full flat position and you push the throttle in
rapidly, the engine is likely to overspeed.
How slow you must apply the throttle to avoid overspeed is a function of the size of the
governor in relation to the propellor requirements and the difference between the RPM
when the power is applied and the RPM to which the governor is set.
There will be little or no thrust applied to the airframe until such time as the RPM
reaches that RPM which the governor is trying to maintain.
There is, in fact, a potential of some drag being produced during the time that the
engine is winding up to the selected RPM.
If the throttle is advanced rapidly while the governor is set to some lower RPM than
red line, thrust will be produced as soon as the RPM reaches the RPM for which the
governor is set.
I like to have the RPM set fairly low, 2000 to 2100 most of the time on my airplane,
and then add throttle to around 24 or 25 inches when I want to go around. That gives
me thrust sooner than I would get it if the governor was set for 2700 and reduces the
possibility of an overspeed if I should happen to screw up and shove the throttle in too
rapidly. I then put the governor control to the desired RPM and add the rest of the
available MP. (Actually, I find that I can do both at the same time)
On engines that have a relatively small governor supplying a propellor which requires
quite a bit of oil to actuate, it is relatively easy to advance the throttle at a rate which
will create just enough overspeed so that the RPM goes up to the redline even though
the governor is set to cruise RPM. A smooth advance on the governor control will then
hold that RPM perfectly.
It worked great on the R-1830 in the DC-3!

1340
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

I have tried it on Bonanzas and felt that it could be done on the early 470s, but the
timing is more critical. The newer props and governors seem to react so fast that it is
more difficult, or maybe with my advancing age, my timing just isn’t as good. In any
case, I don’t recommend the procedure for most of us on most of our airplanes
So to answer your question, it depends!
You can baby your engine and still be in a position to make a panic go around with very
little risk on a normally aspirated engine even if the RPM setting is left at cruise, so
why not do it? For the non supercharged engine, full throttle at 2100 RPM is unlikely
to do any damage and, if it is a panic go around, the RPM will likely overspeed a little
anyhow. WOT followed as soon as possible with shoving the prop up will get power
on quickly with no harm to the engine. But, if that makes you uncomfortable, the
overspeed that you might get, in that panic situation, with the method you have been
taught probably won’t hurt your engine much either!
Any help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010210 105657 msg03378.tex]

1341
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Best Power
Thu, 13 Jan 2000 23:47:24

In a message dated 1/13/00 10:34:56 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob: So in my K-35 with the IO-520, when I have max speed, I am at my

best power? Steve

Good Evening Steve,

That is a true statement! Remember though, that individual cylinders may not be.
Some may be quite a way from best power. One of the advantages of our modern engine
instrumentation is that we can determine how each one is doing. If the EGTs all peak
at the same fuel flow, it is a pretty good bet that all cylinders will be providing pretty
close to best power when sufficiently richened. Richen too much and the speed will fall
off. Lean to peak EGT and the speed will fall off. Pretty simple eh?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000113 234724 msg00793.tex]

1342
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Carb Heat/Carb Temp Indicator

Tue, 21 Sep 1999 21:00:02

In a message dated 9/21/99 2:41:24 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Does anyone out there know of anyone who currently sells carburetor tem-
perature indicators (to detect the potential for carb ice)? Anyone have any
experience with one?
Thanks.

Good Evening Tom,

I don’t have any direct knowledge of currently available carburetor air temperature
gauges, but they were standard equipment on almost all of the Beech model 18s as well
as most of the round engines used by air carriers for so many years. There must be lots
of them around somewhere!
It’s funny, I have several thousand hours flying time in aircraft equipped with those
gauges and very little memory of what we used them for! I do recall that there were
limits on how high we were allowed to carry the temperatures for continuous operation,
but don’t recall what those limits were. I believe they were required to be installed in
aircraft used for IFR air taxi work in the late forties and early fifties, but that memory
is hazy also.
I do remember that some of the Beech 18 operators flew with carb heat on all of the time
except for takeoff. I never could figure the rationale for that procedure, but it wasn’t
uncommon.
On the airline for which I flew, we didn’t use the heat unless we felt we were getting
some ice and we would then set it at a temperature that would eliminate the ice and
monitor that temperature to keep it as low as possible while still preventing the ice from
forming.
There were a few pilots who would apply the heat as a precaution against getting ice
any time we were in cloud, but those were the exception, not the rule.
The precise temperature at which ice would form seemed to vary a lot. I would imagine it
is like anything else in aviation. It depends! The placement of the probe in the airstream
would certainly make a difference and I suppose there are variables introduced by the
moisture content of the air, the volume or rate of air flow and lots of other things of
which I have no knowledge.
The use of the instrument seemed to decline as the years passed by and I guess it was
because we didn’t think it did much! It was helpful in keeping the heat as low as possible
when carburetor heat was required.
Personally, I think there is little useful knowledge to be gained from the information the
instrument would provide, but if you have an empty instrument hole, give it a try!

1343
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990921 210002 msg08696.tex]

1344
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Climb Opeartion
Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:44:47

In a message dated 2/29/00 2:30:45 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

All this talk of Cylinder head temps scared the crap out of me this morning,
as these are the temps I noted: OAT 32 degrees F WOT, 2500 RPM, Full
Rich, Cowl Flaps open, 96 KIAS

Good Afternoon Steve,

Hopefully you will get a more complete comment from someone more knowledgeable
than I, but in the meantime!
I would suggest that you avoid climbing at such a low airspeed. The airplane likes 120
knots or more and it cools a lot better.
I never use the winter baffles unless the temperature outside is down below zero Fahren-
heit and even then, I don’t think they are a very good idea. The airflow is atrociously
uneven.
While I have been advocating full throttle and 2500 RPM for many years, the information
that George Braly has supplied recently concerning the cylinder pressures developed by
that technique have me backing off from that recommendation. I think that if we could
use 20 degrees BTDC for takeoff, that would work fine, but the engine is not certificated
that way and until we get an adjustable spark, I am either leaving the RPM up a little
longer or reducing the manifold pressure to 25 inches or so before I reduce the RPM.
Since I really HATE to do the latter, I generally just roll my RPM back more slowly
than I have the last thirty years or so. By the time I am back to 2500 or 2550, I am up
to two thousand feet MSL or more and I feel the cylinder pressures will not be too high,
but I don’t know for sure.
I don’t like using spark plug gasket cylinder head temperature sensors at all, especially
not on all six cylinders! Why not use the wells in the cylinders that were designed for
that purpose? If those holes are filled with an engine heating system, I would change
the engine heating system. There are many good alternatives available.
Those temperatures aren’t all that bad, considering the airspeeds and the baffles, but
they could be a lot better. I can’t imagine operating any of the Continental 520 or 550
fuel injected engines without a set of balanced fuel injector nozzles regardless of what
leaning philosophy is used.
Just one guys opinion.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000229 164447 msg03936.tex]

1345
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Climb Power
Thu, 23 Nov 2000 12:07:34

In a message dated 11/22/00 6:33:26 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob, I think where I got that was when I was taught to fly the plane, my
instructor, apparantly using the ”cruise climb” table, told me to reduce the
rpm to 2500. I therefore translated this to mean 2600 was only to be used
during takeoff. Are we saying then, that the plane could be kept at 2600
rpm in climb all the way to 16k’ ? Or, in cruise?

Good Morning Jerry,

Most instructors will suggest a power reduction of some sort after takeoff in many high
performance airplanes.
Part of that is a carry over from the days when some Bonanzas had engines that did have
a takeoff power that was higher than the Maximum Continuous power, but sometimes it
is just an effort, misguided or true, that a power reduction means that you are babying
the engine.
I advocate using full power for takeoff, but reducing the RPM as soon as practical when
flying over noise sensitive areas. Whether or not a manifold pressure reduction should
accompany that RPM reduction is subject to more conditions than I care to discuss
with this thread.
Suffice it to say that you can legally operate your engine at 2600 RPM anytime your
heart desires!
Most engines and propellors are more efficient at something below maximum rated RPM,
but that too can lead to a long discussion.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001123 120734 msg16604.tex]

1346
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Criuse Power Setting

Thu, 2 Sep 1999 21:43:32

In a message dated 9/2/99 6:23:01 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

It is not my conscious intent to always have the same cruise power. In

part it’s because it allows me to set power without having to refer to the
charts, and if I use the same at all times, it’s easier to remember. I’m a
recreational flyer, and do not use the airplane for business, so my use is
a bit irregular, and reducing the number of things to remember or look
up just puts less of a strain on aging neurons. Time is not always a major
consideration, so I’m not looking for maximum speed. It has always seemed
to be a contradiction that we spend our training and early flying trying to
get as much flight time as possible, and then once the ratings are earned
there’s a transition to trying to go fast, which reduces the time logged.

Good Evening John,

Your entire post was most interesting but the above quoted portion parallels my thoughts
precisely!
I rarely use any special power setting. Most of the time I am at an altitude which calls
for full throttle so I just set the RPM to give me an airspeed that meets the mission
demands of the day and that is how she goes.
I enjoy trying different things with the machine to see what it will do and sometimes I
go for long range, other times we just see how fast it will go.
What a neat toy to play with!
Your earlier post gave me a chance to talk about the need to look at the power charts
IF one is interested in operating at some certain power. Thanks for the opportunity!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990902 214332 msg07810.tex]

1347
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Cruise Power Setting

Thu, 2 Sep 1999 08:45:13

In a message dated 9/2/99 12:54:07 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I usually use 2300 RPM and 20 inches for cruise. Most times I’m high
enough that this is full or nearly full throttle.

Good Morning John,

Just a small comment. It seems to be fairly common for many aviators to use a set of
numbers such as ”23 squared” or as you said, ”2300 RPM and 20 inches.”
There is certainly nothing wrong with operating the engine in that manner, but that
procedure will not provide a consistent amount of power at different altitudes.
With a normally aspirated engine, 20 inches at 10 thousand feet and 2300 RPM will not
provide the same horsepower as would 20 inches and 2300 RPM at 2 thousand feet.
The back pressure in the exhaust system is less at higher altitudes which allows more
air into the cylinders than would the same manifold pressure at lower altitudes.
When I was first taught such things over fifty years ago, the word was that the difference
was roughly equivalent to one-third of an inch of manifold pressure per thousand feet.
I happily used that figure and taught the same to my students for many years. Then
one day I actually looked at the power charts and it seems to me that the difference is
closer to one-fourth of an inch per thousand feet.
I don’t know which is correct, but the important thing is to remember that IF you want
to use the same power at cruise while flying at different altitudes, you should consult
your power charts to choose the numbers to set on the gauges.
Obviously there will be other factors affecting the power output than just the MP and
RPM, a major one being the way the engine is leaned, but using fixed MP and RPM
numbers does not provide a stable base from which to start.
Once again, there is no reason you have to operate at the same power at different
altitudes, but if that is your desire, it won’t happen using fixed numbers.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990902 084513 msg07756.tex]

1348
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Cruise Setting and Ignition Timing

Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:31:39

In a message dated 1/13/00 2:44:50 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

It does, however, require a willingness to accept that what many people

say about engine operation is just flat wrong. That’s an uncomfortable
position for many pilots.
– Tom Gresham

How very true your statements are!

The funny thing is that the information has been readily available since at least the
1920s.
Another factor in the equation is consideration of the ignition timing of the engine.
When we ran the Turbo Compound R3350s well on the lean side of best power (we
didn’t have EGT gauges, so we worked from best power) we switched the timing to an
advanced position. Takeoff and climb was at twenty degree BTDC and cruise was at
twenty-five degrees BTDC. At any certain cylinder pressure and mixture, the speed of
the flame propagation is fixed. Richen the mixture from best power and the burn rate
slows a little. Lean the mixture and the burn rate slows a lot! On the 3350, if we had
leaned as aggressively with the spark set at twenty BTDC as we did with the spark at
twenty-five BTDC the flame front would have still been burning as it went out through
the exhaust valve. Not only would that be a disadvantage to valve longevity, It wasted
a lot of the power available due to the peak pressure point being too late on the stroke.
Since the speed of the flame propagation is a function of the mixture and the pressure,
changing the RPM effectively changes the timing of the position of the peak power
pulse. Reduce the RPM and the timing is effectively advanced. Increase the RPM and
the timing is effectively retarded.
What am I saying? We must remember that timing and the RPM at which the engine
is being operated need to be considered when deciding how lean we should be operating
the engine.
To take maximum advantage of the pleasures of lean side operation, we need an ad-
justable spark advance, just like the Model T Ford!
Hopefully, George Braly and/or Continental will soon have an electronic ignition avail-
able to solve that problem!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000113 163139 msg00757.tex]

1349
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

EGT
Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:32:28

Good Evening BeechG35

In a message dated 98-03-25 15:32:25 EST, you write:

I have and E-225-8 in a ”G” model bonanza and wondered if anyone can
tell me what range the actual EGT in degress F should be when properly
leaned at 75% power and say 6000 feet. I find lots of items regarding ”rich
of” and ”lean of” but ”what of”? Thanks.

I really wouldn’t try to tell you what the actual temperatures should be. There are too
many variables as to how far the probes are located from the cylinders etc. The function
of the EGT is to help you analyze the reaction of the engine to the leaning process, but
you must have a decent knowledge of what is happening before they make any sense.
Some basic considerations:
The peak combustion temperature in the cylinder will occur at or near the best power
mixture. That is when all of the air and all of the fuel are consumed. The peak exhaust
gas temperature at the probe will occur somewhat later, once again dependent on how far
downstream the probe is located. On the Continentals with the probe located a couple of
inches from the cylinder flange, the peak exhaust gas temperature will occur somewhere
after the best power or the time the peak temperature is developed in the cylinder.
When Alcor did their tests, I believe the numbers that were developed showed that
peak power and peak EGT in the cylinder occurred when the EGT was approximately
50 degrees F richer than peak. In other words if you lean the engine till the indicated
EGT is at peak you will be operating on the lean side of best power. Richen 50 degrees F
and you will be at or near best power. Richen 25 degrees F and you will still be slightly
on the lean side. Remember that you would have to be operating at the same power
settings and have your probes at the same locations that Al Hundere had when he ran
the tests in order to use the exact same numbers. This all presumes that the mixture is
equal at all cylinders. We know that this rarely occurs though it is much better on the
PS5C carbureted engines than on the later fuel injected engines.
Continental does not rcommend running at or lean of best power mixture if the power
is above 65%. You can cool the engine by adding extra fuel or extra air but using air to
cool only works if the mixtures are the same in all cylinders.
At or above 75% power I would suggest 100 to 150 gegrees F richer than peak EGT.
At 65% power or less, you can lean it any way you want. Between 75% and 65% things
are a little controversial!
One way to check to see what best power is on your airplane is to set up 65% power
cruise on a day with smooth stable air. Put your prop in manual (provided you are still
lucky enough to have the Beech electric prop) then lean till you see an increase in the

1350
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

RPM followed by a drop in RPM. The peak RPM will be best power. If you note the
EGT at that time and then lean to peak EGT you will have some idea of the difference
from peak power for the next time you lean in less than smooth air.
It is a lot easier than it sounds!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980326 193228 msg01451.tex]

1351
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

EGT
Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:04:01

Good Morning George,

In a message dated 98-03-26 23:19:02 EST, you write:

If Bonanza owner participating in this forum can show me any intellectually

honest engineering data that supports the proposition that operating an
engine at any given specific horsepower (65%... 75% ... or even 90%) at
75F rich of peak is ”better” for the engine than running it at the same
horsepower at 75F lean of peak, then I’ll buy them and all of their pax in
their Bonanza a free BBQ lunch here at Ada and fill up both wing tanks
before they leave.

Well put and it brings up an interesting (to me anyhow) point. Many years ago in a far
distant past I had the pleasure of operating the R3350 on the DC-7 for several years. As
you well know, these were very highly developed piston engines. Some versions provided
over one horsepower per cubic inch displacement.
They were designed to be very light weight, provide high power for a short time for
takeoff and yet have extreme economy to allow long range. Cruise SFC was .42, very
low for the time.
The engine had direct fuel injection to the cylinder and that system had an injector
distribution plate for each row or bank of cylinders. Twin row engine, two distributor
plates. One of the problems we had was that the plates would occasionally slip on
the shaft which tied them together and controlled the mixture delivered to the engine.
When that occured, and we leaned in the normal manner using the torquemeter, one
row would get a much leaner mixture and one row would get a much richer mixture than
desired. The total power output was what we wanted, but one row was doing almost all
of the work. This led to very expensive engine damage. Pistons sometimes froze in the
cylinders and broke connecting rods etc. Pretty messy!
The interesting point is that it was the overly RICH row that came apart!
The overly lean row of cylinders were clean as a whistle and had no sign of distress
whatsoever.
The overly rich condition put the cylinder in a power range not designed to be used in
cruise and they couldn’t take it. The fix was to put a cylinder temperature gauge on
each row instead of just one and if we noted a significant difference in temperature (I
believe it was around 25 degrees Centigrade) between the front row and the rear, we
would feather the engine.
It seems that any time the cylinder, valves and other components are operating in
a temperature and pressure environment which does not exceed the stresses the unit
was designed for, there is no problem! Whether the temperatures are controlled by

1352
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

adding extra fuel or extra air make little difference. There is a potential, as you know,
for oxygenation of certain components but that has been quite well accounted for by
modern metallurgy.
It is fortunate that you can now instrument an aircraft engine and find out directly what
is happening instead of relying on evaluation of symptoms as we had to do in those years
long past!
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980327 100401 msg01474.tex]

1353
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

EGT
Sat, 28 Mar 1998 02:06:30

Good morning Ralph,

In a message dated 98-03-27 23:59:22 EST, you write:

I’ve been reading your stuff for a while now, and have yet to find an error.
Good stuff, but I got to ask you, How do you feather and engine?

Excellent point, obviously the engine was shut down and the propeller feathered. So
much for technical accuracy.

Seriously, why didn’t you just enrichen it until the crossover in CHT went
back to normal. I always liked all four motors running on the DC-7 if it
was at all possible. Even if it meant a little more fuel flow.

That too is a good point! I suppose it was because we were so paranoid about the
possibility of setting that magnesium case on fire that we tended to shut it down if it
hiccuped or even seemed close to doing so. When we were first trained on the airplane
they showed us a training film that had been made for the military concerning the
operation and care of the R3350. One of the comments in the film was to carefully
observe the engine after receiving a fire warning and if a white flame was visible, to
abandon the aircraft as there was no way to put out the fire and the wing would soon
burn off. Since we were not provided with the means for abandoning the aircraft, we
were not at all hesitant to shut one down. The engines were very expensive and the
airplane flew extremely well on three and didn’t do bad on two. We even had an airplane
get successfully on an airport once after having feathered – oops! I mean shut down
three engines. (The Captain did unfeather the propeller and restart one that he had shut
down due to a double shorted secondary but it was still a commendable performance.)
We tended to shut them down if there was any indication of a problem. I don’t think I
would have continued operating the engine even with a richened mixture as I don’t think
there was any way of knowing when the mixture and therefore the power was within
limits. The engine would at least had to have been operated at reduced power to avoid
the problem of the overly rich row still carrying too much of the load. I don’t think
equalizing the temperatures would have assured a safe operation and for sure, the spark
advance would have to be put back to retard. I am not certain, but I really think the
range of the airplane would be improved by shutting the engine down and feathering
the propeller and I would then be sure I wouldn’t break it. If you will recall, the leaning
procedure was quite a process and rather high power was carried at a very lean mixture
which relied on excess combustion air to the cylinders for proper cooling. Richening
might have worked, but I would have wanted assurance from the engine designer before
I tried it.
Pretty long dissertation for a simple comment but you have made me think about it!!
Lest I leave the impression that the airplane was less safe than others. I must comment

1354
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

that I flew the airplane as long as my airline operated it. The first four years as a copilot
and another seven years as captain. We flew the DC-6 and the DC-7 as a common fleet
and I probably flew each about the same amount of time. The irregular removal rate
on the seven was about twice what it was on the six but we tended to try to keep the
alumimnum cased R2800 running in cases where we shut down the seven due to the
possibility of uncontrolable engine fire. If you are old enough to remember there were a
few cases of people who tried to keep the engine running after they should have shut it
down and there were at least two who were lucky enough to get it on the ground with an
uncontrollable engine fire before the wing burned off. Both of those were within fifteen
minutes of a suitable airport. It was a great airplane and did a wonderful job at what
it was designed to do but it did need careful tender loving care.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980328 020630 msg01525.tex]

1355
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

EGT
Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:22:44

Good Evening Mike Plecenik,

In a message dated 1/29/99 9:58:25 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

I have a ’51 C model with an E225-8/Hartzell hyd. and have seen posts
refering to speed restrictions other than what is in the POH but no mention
of what these restrictions are. .
I wonder if you aren’t noting the references to the AD which applies to the
35, A35, B35 and 35R airplanes which lowers the allowed operating speed.
Your C35 is not affected by that AD. Could that be it or are there other
restrictions that you are asking about?

Also, there is mention of max. EGT but not what that max.
is (my EGT at full rich is 1400 and peaks at 1550 then stays
there until just before the eng.starts to stumble or quits then it
might drop a few degrees - single probe in #2). All donations
are appreciated.

I know of no maximum allowable EGT limit for the normally aspirated

airplanes. Generally all references are plus or minus to the point at which
the temperature peaks. The number of degrees that the engine is operated
from that base number is the key.
The turboed engines do have a limit so that the turbine wheel will not be
exposed to damaging temperatures.
The limit set for the individual engine is a function of the placement of the
probe and the material of which the turbine wheel is manufactured. It is
generally around 1600 or 1650 degrees.
You mention that the probe is mounted in #2. The distance from the
cylinder can make a large difference in the actual reading. If you are getting
no drop before the onset of roughness, it is likely that there is some problem
with your fuel distribution.
Hopefully George Braly will have more to say as he is the expert on such
things!
Probably not much help but at least the comments are free!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990130 002244 msg01483.tex]

1356
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Engine Cooling After Shutdown

Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:44:47

In a message dated 7/15/99 9:58:50 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Having made some actual measurements in this area, for the

purpose of gathering some certification data on the necessary
operating temperature of some under cowl electronic compo-
nents, it is my conclusion that putting in the bird plugs after
shutdown is one of the worst things one can do for the acces-
sories.

Good Evening George,

Thanks for the information! I guess I can keep on cooling my engine down
after shut down without feeling foolish!
It seems that many of the old procedures still have merit.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990715 234447 msg06066.tex]

1357
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Engine Cooling After Shutdown

Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:33:19

In a message dated 7/16/99 12:22:28 PM Central Daylight Time, 72311.556@com-

puserve.com writes:

Candidly, I NEVER plug my cowl, except when I am in ”bird

country” in the spring time.

Good Afternoon George and All,

Everything George has stated sounds reasonable to me!
I have been trying to cool my engine before buttoning it up for at least the
last forty years and for quite a few of those years, my procedure was similar
to George’s. I only used bird covers when I thought there might be a bird
problem. Having been surprised by the little buggers several times, I now
work at cooling things down so I can install the bird covers every time.
This discussion has brought a thought to mind. May be we should be
designing a Bird Plug that consists primarily of a course screen of some
type. Three quarters or one inch mesh ought to do the job. It would still
be nice if it had soft edges so that it was as easy as the current crop to
install.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990716 143319 msg06108.tex]

1358
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Engine Cooling After Shutdown (was leaning)

Thu, 15 Jul 1999 12:40:34

In a message dated 7/15/99 10:46:06 AM Central Daylight Time, jts-

[email protected] writes:

Here’s a hypothetical: I arrive at my destination at an FBO

and I immediately plug the nose, close the cowl flaps and
generally button up the aircraft. The OAT is 90-100o and
sunny. I’m in a hurry and will not return for several hours. Is
this generally a ’bad’ thing? If it is, then is there something
significantly better?
For example, is it better when you arrive at your hanger that
after pulling in you open both cowl doors? Is just opening the
oil access door better than nothing?
Or is this much ado about nothing?

Good Morning John,

I am not about to recommend to anyone how they handle such a situation
because there is a distinct possibility that it really is ”Much Ado About
Nothing.”
Having said that, many years ago in a far distant past, I flew an airplane
called the Convair 340. It was a twin engine airplane powered by a couple of
very nice round Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engines. The airplane was one of
the first to use augmenter tubes for cooling and that provision theoretically
eliminated the need for cowl flaps. (It really didn’t work too well, but that
is another story!) Since there were no cowl flaps available to help dissipate
all of the accumulated heat while on the ground, the airplane was equipped
with a couple of roughly foot square doors on the top of the nacelle called
”Heat Dissipation Doors.” These were opened on the ground to help let the
heat out. We were informed that this was necessary to keep the accessories
from being heated to a temperature above that at which they were designed
to operate.
Do to that training, I have made a practice of attempting to open my
cowlings for a few minutes after shut down any time it is practical to do
so. I delay putting in the bird plugs as well. I also take out the dip stick
and place a porous paper towel or cloth over the oil tube. I find that if I
do this right after shut down, the engine has generally cooled down quite
a bit by the time I have arranged for transportation, fueling, parking and
all of the other sundry activities associated with an airport arrival.
Does it make any difference?

1359
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Probably not, but it gives me something to do!

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990715 124034 msg06042.tex]

1360
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Engine Longevity
Sun, 27 Aug 2000 10:58:38

In a message dated 8/27/00 8:53:15 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Is it, in fact, true that running an engine easier will increase

its life? What about the axiom of ’run it like you hate it’ ?
Good Morning John,
The longest lived engines are those which are stressed the
least, BUT they must be set up with temperature control
devices, ignition and valve timing to optimize the engine for
the operation expected.
We in aviation tend to operate engines that we want to get a
lot of power out of, but which we want to weigh very little. If
you are going to pull a lot of power out of an engine on any
occasion, I think it is important that the engine be operated
at those high powers on a regular basis to make certain that
it is capable of doing so with reliability.
If we wish to gain the maximum durability from the engine,
operations at lower stress levels will do that and there MAY
be fuel consumption advantages as well.
Putting the bigger engines in the lighter airframes allows us
to operate that engine at it’s very high power often enough
to meet the goal of letting it do it’s thing, but at speeds that
allow excellent cooling capability.
It can take that airframe up to an altitude where we can op-
erate it at a level of power which we consider low, but which
is still a very high power rating compared to stationary or
automotive applications, and provide very good performance
while allowing flexible fuel management techniques.
Personally, I have never agreed with the axiom you state. I
don’t mind getting the greatest power out of an engine that
can be done without reducing the reliability and I would prefer
that such operation not decrease it’s durability to any great
extent.
However, I want to assure myself that I am treating that old
horse in a manner which will allow it to get the exercise it
needs without causing unhealthy strain in it’s muscle and tis-
sue.

1361
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000827 105838 msg12645.tex]

1362
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Engine Longevity
Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:36:32

In a message dated 2/10/01 9:16:34 AM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

This is interesting reading that Ernie sent: http://www.avweb.com/articles/bigbore.html

http://www.avweb.com/articles/oversq.html

Good Afternoon Richard,

I think it is important to remember that there is a big differ-
ence in how various operators manage their engines.
That difference can make a very big difference in the longevity
of the engine.
There are a lot of differences between the big old round en-
gines and our modern little flat ones, but there are many more
similarities than variances.
When I first checked out as a copilot on the DC-6, we were
overhauling the R-2800 Pratts every six hundred hours.
By the time they were retired from service by my employer,
the overhaul times were approaching 4000 hours.
That was done by careful evaluation of the failures and insti-
tuting operating procedures throughout the company to ame-
liorate those problems. Little things like keeping the engine
pulling seemed to help a lot. Others were strict limits on cold
weather starting and some things as simple as waiting a full
sixty seconds following the engine start before adding power
to start taxiing even when the engines were already up to
required temperatures.
I have never been certain which policies and procedures were
the ones that allowed the continuous improvement in TBO,
but I have always tried to adopt similar procedures for oper-
ation of my own engines until I found good data which would
suggest another method.
Four thousand hours between majors sounds good to me!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010210 133632 msg03397.tex]

1363
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Fuel Distribution Efficiency and GAMIjectors

Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:58:50

Good Afternoon Eric Poole,

In a message dated 98-08-07 13:22:40 EDT, you write:

The GAMIs sure do get a lot of good press but

I guess I’m not sure about spending $800 to fix
what doesn’t appear to be broke...

One method of checking the distribution efficiency of your

engine is to set it up at cruise altitude and cruise power and
then start leaning.
If you can get a drop in airspeed of 8 to 10 mph with no
roughness developing, the distribution is not too bad.
Continue leaning until you lose the first cylinder.
If there is very little difference between the point at which the
first cylinder drops out while leaning and the point at which
the engine is no longer firing any cylinder, the distribution at
that power setting is very good.
If one cylinder starts to drop out before you get any airspeed
loss, but the engine continues to run (though roughly) for
quite some time as you continue to lean before the engine quits
completely, the distribution at that power setting is lousy.
Now that you have modern engine analysis capability I would
suggest that you contact George Braly and go through the
procedure he recommends to find out precisely what is hap-
pening to your engine.
The 470s don’t seem to need balancing as much as the 520 and
550, but I think you will find that considerable improvement
is possible with the balanced injectors.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980807 135850 msg04099.tex]

1364
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Fuel Flow
Sat, 17 Jan 1998 23:23:47

Good Evening Joe Gerardi,

In a message dated 98-01-17 21:23:47 EST, you copy this mes-
sage from George:

Having the mixture 10% too rich might cost you

3 to 7 hp on takeoff. having it 10% to low can
crater your jugs in a 150 hours or so.

I for one agree wholeheartedly with George Braly. If the mix-

ture is a little rich, you can always lean it out a little. If the
error is on the lean side there is nothing that you can do about
it from the cockpit.
I prefer to set them at the maximum and then add about
another gallon per hour at least until I am able to calibrate
the fuel flow gauges to be absolutely certain that they are rich
enough.
Once the instrumentation has been calibrated, the flow can
be dropped a little if desired.
It is not unusual to see new electronic fuel flow units that are
four percent off. That is a gallon per hour in our airplanes.
Enough to bother me!!
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980117 232347 msg00349.tex]

1365
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Fuel Flow
Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:58:19

In a message dated 2/23/00 7:48:42 PM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

Just wanted some more experienced input on the

power setting/fuel burns since I hear so much
about 12-13 gph fuel burn rates on this list.

Good Evening Bill,

It is my pleasure!!
Incidentally my everyday burns range from 16.6 GPH to 10
GPH depending on what I am trying to accomplish. The
fantastic flexibility of the series is one of the things that make
it so great! I just wish they had added that ten inch extension
to the V-tail as well as the Debbie!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000223 205819 msg03457.tex]

1366
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

HP/Speed/Fuel Flow
Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:22:54

In a message dated 2/16/01 8:36:43 AM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

I took off with full fuel[80gal]just me and a small

suitcase......For fuel flow, all I have is the IO-
550 OEM fuel flow gauge...It read between 13.2-
14.0 gal/hr... With the old IO-520 no Gamis I
would generally get 168-172k/tas. with fuel flow
of 14.5-15.0 John 73 V35B

Good Morning John,

All in all, that doesn’t sound too bad.
Faster on less fuel seems pretty good.
Let’s try some wild guesses as to what might be the amount
of improvement one should expect via the bigger engine and
the GAMIs.
First off, the airplane should have exactly the same speed at
the same horsepower as before.
Why? Well, consider the following.
The drag of the airplane should not change measurably.
The weight of the 520 and the 550 are virtually identical. Con-
tinental lists the 550 as a couple of pounds lighter on their
TCDS. You may have lighter, more modern, starter and al-
ternators installed or yours may be the same as before. The
propellor should be considered as well, both for weight and
performance.
You likely had the BDS baffling system installed. That could
affect the drag, but I doubt if any difference would be mea-
surable on the airspeed indicator.
If the horsepower, prop, weight and drag are the same, the
speed should be the same.
Next let’s consider just the GAMIs. The addition of these
balanced injectors alone will have an effect on your pounds of
fuel burned per horsepower developed.
Depending on how well matched your stock injectors were,
you should be able to get the same horsepower now on one

1367
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

half to as much a one and one half gallons per hour less fuel.
The IO-550 has the reputation of being slightly more efficient
when it comes to developing horsepower. I doubt if it is as
much as one percent more efficient, but let’s assume that it is.
That would mean that if you were burning 14 GPH at some
certain speed before the switch to a 550, the 550 would save
.14 GPH resulting in a fuel flow of 13.86 GPH. Add in a WAG
for the amount of fuel saved by installation of the GAMIs (let’s
use one GPH) and the burn to get the same horsepower should
now be 12.86 GPH.
You should be going the same speed with the GAMI equipped
IO-550 on 12.86 GPH that you were previously getting on 14
GPH with the non GAMI IO-520.
A fuel burn of 12.86 on an engine operated some twenty-five
degrees F lean of peak EGT would be developing approxi-
mately 192 HP.
Increase the power to where you were burning 14 GPH with
the same conditions and you would be developing 207 HP,
fifteen more horsepower than before.
Fifteen more horsepower should yield something less than a
four knot increase in speed.
As a practical matter, I find that I now experience average
cruise speeds about ten knots faster than before, but I think
that is due to the better rate of climb which encourages me
to fly higher. I also find that my fuel burn per hour is higher
which means that I am now cruising at a higher horsepower
than I did with the 520.
My overall trip burns seem about the same as before. I believe
that is also due to the higher altitudes flown.
Your experience appears to be right in line with expectations,
but to check for sure, you need to develop some very precise
before and after data. Obviously that would be difficult to do
at this late date!
Hope this helps.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010216 112254 msg03983.tex]

1368
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Idle Speed
Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:54:03

In a message dated 2/24/00 11:07:41 AM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

Then I’d still run 1200 rpm after starting while

the parts warm up.
Anyone have conflicting information?

Good Morning John,

Once again, it depends on what we are talking about. I like to
keep the RPM as low as possible on a start for a few seconds.
Right there, I guess I agree with your old mechanic friend! As
the oil pressure rises and gives me confidence that oil is being
thrown around the engine, I let the RPM come up a little.
After thirty seconds or so, it is generally around 800 RPM.
By the time a minute has gone by, it will generally have risen
to 1000 or more. If it goes above that, I will usually throttle
it down to a thousand and keep it between 1000 and 1100 for
the rest of the warm up.
Having said that, back in my helicopter days, we regularly set
the engines to idle at 1100 to 1200 RPM. Due to the lack of
the flywheel effect, those engines needed to idle fast to run at
all! The flywheel provided was small and light!
The engine regularly spun up almost immediately to 1200
RPM and we observed no undue wear or vastly shortened life.
I do believe we were overhauling them at a TBO of around
1200 hours though.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000224 125403 msg03521.tex]

1369
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Lead in Fuel as Lubricant

Fri, 14 Jan 2000 14:01:20

In a message dated 1/14/00 11:48:18 AM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

This is not all first hand information for me, but

I am sourcing it back to engineers in the refining
business that are currently still making 100LL,
that have first hand knowledge of these issues. I
believe it to be accurate information, and it is
consistent with my personal recollection of the
history of these matters which goes back to the
1960s.

Good Afternoon All,

I would like to make a ”me too” comment on this one. I have
heard the story about valve seats requiring lead for lubrication
ever since I started in the business well over fifty years ago.
Every now and then I would read an article by various fuel
engineers that heavily disputed the necessity of providing lead
as a lubricant.
The most convincing of those articles was one written by an
engineer who was instrumental in developing the use of lead
as an anti-detonation additive in the early days of combustion
engines. He was employed by and had retired from the Ethyl
corporation. If anybody should be familiar with such things,
I think he would.
The article was in one of the boating magazines that I read
some twenty or thirty years ago and he pointed out that there
were many very high compression racing boats that had been
run on totally lead free fuel. I am no engineer and I no longer
have the article, but it was very convincing and he did com-
ment on the use of lead in aviation fuel. He totally discounted
any requirement for lead as a lubricant for the valves or any-
thing else in the engine. As I recall, it was just the cheapest
way to gain octane in the fuel!
For What It’s Worth!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000114 140120 msg00825.tex]

1370
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Lean to Best Power

Wed, 12 Jan 2000 22:50:23

In a message dated 1/12/00 9:21:49 PM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

Bob: Please help this novice. When flying, how

are you determining best power - by the book or
by (what?) the gauges? Thanks for your help,
Steve

Good Evening Steve,

As always, it depends! With a fixed pitch prop it is easy, just
lean for peak rpm. For the early Bonanza with an electric
prop, I would put the prop in manual and lean for peak RPM.
In a twin the aircraft is leaned roughly till the engines are
smooth, but on the rich side. The aircraft is then trimmed
for that power. One engine is leaned till a yaw develops and
then adjusted until the max power is developed on that side.
If the yaw develops toward the engine which is being leaned,
it is richened. If it yaws toward the other side, the mixture is
adjusted to maintain the maximum yaw. The other engine is
then leaned in a similar manner.
That is normally referred to as power leaning.
On a single engine airplane with a constant speed prop, the
airspeed is the primary indicator. In smooth air, it is a breeze.
In turbulence, it takes some experience to note the best power
position. It gets easier with practice.
Does that help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000112 225023 msg00708.tex]

1371
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Leaning
Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:15:13

Good Morning George Harrison,

In a message dated 98-01-30 07:14:15 EST, you write:

so what I’m trying to do is understand the best

way to get adequate or reasonable performance
and avoid doing bad things to the engine.

Ah, THAT is a commendable goal!

The problem with the log manifold Continentals is the lousy
fuel/air distribution of the stock system. The E series and the
early carburerated versions often (but not always) had much
better distribution and could operate quite comfortably at the
more optimum (leaner) mixture settings.
The key is that we should be striving for even distribution of
air and fuel to all cylinders to obtain ”adequate or reasonable
performance and avoid doing bad things to the engine.”
The fuel saved between overhauls will easily pay for the GAMIs
and the instrumentation to see what is happening.
The extra fuel is not doing the engine any good! It puts
all sorts of junk in the engine and can wash lubrication off
the cylinder walls, contribute to stuck rings, provide debris
to hold a valve open (causing warping and burning), provide
an ignition source for preignition and all sorts of other bad
things!
This is not a new problem. If you are familiar with the Jacobs
and the Lycoming round engines of the forties, you might be
interested to know that the Jakes were normally aspirated
and the fuel was fed to the cylinders via a set of distribution
vanes which were centered on the aft side of the engine. The
Lycoming was set up similarly but their distribution vanes
spun with the crankshaft. No boost, it just helped spread the
fuel equally to all of the cylinders. With the Jakes, the top
cylinders ran lean and the bottom ones ran way rich. Thus
the appelation ”Shaky Jakes”.
The Lycomings were known as a smooth running engine.
I flew for an outfit that had both Lycoming and Jacobs pow-
ered Cessna Bobcats (UC78s or T-50s). At the same air-
speeds, the Lycoming powered airplanes burned 28 gals per

1372
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

hour for the two engines and the Jacobs powered burned 36
GPH. The Jacobs were constantly suffering from stuck valves
and hard starting due to fouled plugs. The Lycomings just
ticked away smoothly and quietly doing their job.
The first order of business is to attain an even fuel air mixture
to all cylinders. It has always been so!
Once that is accomplished then we can start talking of which
side of ”best power” to operate at.
Notice that I didn’t say which side of peak? The peak exhaust
temperature which we read on our probes is dependent on
the probes location on the individual engine. How far it is
from the peak combustion temperature is a function of many
variables.
The 25 degrees C or 36 F and other numbers are just averages
that occur for the engines on which they experimented.
A small difference in the mag timing will make a substantial
difference in the relationship of peak indicated EGT to actual
peak combustion temperature.
Enough rambling from an old man!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980130 081513 msg00653.tex]

1373
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Leaning
Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:30:44

In a message dated 11/27/00 9:24:36 AM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

George - Would you care to comment on the ap-

propriate way to lean a carbureted, normally-
aspirated engine that does not have either GAMI’s,
an engine analyzer or an EGT? At present, many
of us are flying such airplanes and would greatly
appreciate your insight.

Good Morning Tom,

I, too, would like to hear George’s comments on this subject.
While we are waiting, I hope you don’t mind if I stick my two
cents in.
I was operating straight 35s, and other aircraft, in the fifties
before EGTs and the rest of the wonderful information we
now have on our panels became available.
There are several interconnecting considerations to leaning
with little or no modern instrumentation.
Let’s start with a plain old carburetor, float or injection.
It may or may not have good fuel distribution.
The way that I use to determine fuel distribution quality is to
lean the engine slowly and carefully until it becomes rough, or
quits entirely, while watching the airspeed and/or the RPM
closely.
If the aircraft is equipped with a fixed pitch prop, you can
watch the RPM. That is easier than watching the airspeed,
especially in less smooth air. If you are operating an airplane
with an electric prop, put it in manual position.
If the air fuel mix is perfect, the speed and or RPM will ini-
tially rise and then start to fall. If it keeps on running smooth
until the engine is no longer putting out any power at all, con-
ditions are ideal and you can just choose how far on the lean
side you want to operate.
Cessna recommended that the Cessna 170, with the Conti-
nental E-145, be leaned until you had a two MPH drop in
airspeed.

1374
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

For the twins, we would set up the desired cruise with a rich
mixture and then trim the airplane very carefully. We leaned
one engine at a time. If the engine increased power, as ev-
idenced by developing an out of trim condition, we stopped
at the peak power condition and leaned the other one the
same way. Once both engines were developing peak power,
we would retrim the airplane. Then we would lean the first
engine until a noticeable amount of rudder was required to
keep the turn needle stationary and the ball in the middle.
The second engine was leaned until the aircraft was back in
trim. If the total speed lost was more than 3 to 5 mph, we
would richen both engines till the speed was somewhere in the
range of a 3 to 5 mph drop and the aircraft was still in trim.
I still use that procedure when flying my son’s Beech 18.
In flying my Bonanzas of that bygone era, I found that some
of them would drop as much as 12 to 15 mph before I lost a
cylinder, others would start getting rough with as little as 3
or 4 mph decrease. I had one that was so good that all of the
cylinders would quit firing at almost precisely the same point.
When I carefully added fuel to get it running again, all six
would just smoothly come back ticking away.
I tried to find some reason, or difference, between various air-
planes that made one work so well and another so poorly. I
never did find anything that worked on all of them, but some
efforts did result in various degrees of improvement.
The first thing was to look for induction leaks. (Nothing
Changes, does it!)
I found that most, but not all, PS5Cs would work best if I
throttled back from full throttle just enough so that a small
drop in the manifold pressure was noted on the gauge. One
quarter inch of MP, or less, was enough. I assumed that the
reason that helped was because I was taking the unit out
of the enrichment mode, but the slight turbulence added by
the slightly cocked throttle plate may have made a difference
as well. I did remove the carburetor and tried cleaning and
smoothing the tubes where the fuel is injected into the car-
buretor airstream. That procedure had inconclusive results.
Sometimes it made a difference and other times, nothing.
I found that most of my Bonanzas did very well with an air-
speed drop of five mph.
I made a point of inspecting the plugs with an eye toward de-

1375
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

termining how even the mixture was by observing the evenness

of the color of the plugs.
I currently lean my Continental W-670 fixed pitch prop equipped
Stearman by leaning for a fifty RPM drop.
If the engine has good distribution, some sort of ”power lean-
ing” works well. If it starts to get rough early in the leaning
cycle, careful attention to the parameters will generally lead
to the discovery of a procedure that works. However, it is
cheaper and easier to install something that will provide six
cylinder CHTs and EGTs than it is to spend all that time
developing the information from those oblique methods.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001127 113044 msg16789.tex]

1376
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Low Static RPM/Poor Performance

Tue, 21 Nov 2000 18:14:38

In a message dated 11/20/00 7:38:50 AM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

Low static RPM is caused either by too much

pitch in the prop or not enough power in the
engine. Bob, I checked my maximum static yes-
terday; it was 2370 rpm. The red line is 2600
rpm, and it gets 2650 on take off. Since it gets
over redline on take off, should I not worry about
the static? Is the max static rpm a function of
the mixture?

Good Evening Jerry,

The mixture could affect the power. Too rich or too lean can
both cause power loss, though the mixture can be quite a bit
too rich before power loss is noted while the power drops off
quite rapidly with the mixture on the lean side.
If the propellor is not in the governing range when the aircraft
is static and the engine is at full throttle, and it appears that
yours is not, the static RPM is a very good check of the power
available. The fact that it accelerates up to the redline RPM
during or after takeoff has nothing to do with it. If yours is
turning over redline after takeoff, the governor is already set
too high.
My number two son has an excellently performing J35. He
will be out of the country until after Turkey Day, but when
he returns, I will ask him what his setup is currently turning
static.

PS, Bob, assuming you read my other email on

my 300’/m climb rate with the IO-470-C in a
J35, would you care to comment regarding what
differences in this figure one might see with an
IO-470-N [260 HP]? IO-520-BB? IO-550-B? Ceil-
ing?

First, get that engine you have up to the power it is supposed

to develop!
If your airplane is not holding a few hundred pounds of extra
lead weight in the belly, it should perform much better than
the numbers you have presented. That engine needs to be

1377
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

looked at very carefully. I am sure that your static RPM is

way to low. If the problem was in the position of the prop
stops, that could cause too low a static RPM, but once the
combination got up into the governing range, the prop stops
would not affect it. Since the engine seems to govern OK after
you are airborne, there is little possibility that anything else
is wrong other than your engine is not developing the power
that it should.
Putting an IO-550B in that airplane would make it into a
veritable rocket, provided that you are not carrying around
an extra thousand pounds of lead or so.
The things that affect the performance are drag, power and
weight. The airframes are all the same size so the drag of any
of them at the same weight is pretty close to all the others.
Put in the same engine and make sure they are at the same
weight and the performance will be close on any of them.
Since your basic airplane came from the factory some four-
hundred pounds lighter than my V35B, it should run the pants
off my old clunker!
Just keep it light and add as much power as you can stuff
under the cowling!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001121 181438 msg16536.tex]

1378
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Maximum MP
Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:19:30

In a message dated 1/17/00 3:37:36 PM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

Bob: Should I be getting 29.6 inches on my 520?

Steve

Good Afternoon Steve,

That is the limit. I doubt if you would see it on the gauge
unless the atmospheric pressure was on the high side and you
were at sea level. On a cold high pressure day at sea level,
most of us are likely to overboost the engine a little. If it does
go over 29.6, we are supposed to back off the throttle, but I
doubt if anybody does! Obviously, in a normally aspirated
engine, the only way the indicated manifold pressure can be
above the ambient pressure is if there is a ram air effect. For
several years, Mooney used an air filter bypass method and
claimed one inch of boost due to the ram air. I never flew one
and have no knowledge of how well it worked.
The type of engine installed really makes no difference on
how much manifold pressure shows on the gauge. In addition,
the amount of manifold pressure has no direct bearing on the
amount of power produced! If there is no fuel flowing to the
engine, it will still show the same manifold pressure as when
operating normally.
All the gauge tells you is how close the atmosphere where the
gauge is measuring it compares to the ambient.
Some folks, Norm Colvin included, have felt that the Brackett
air filter creates enough resistence to airflow that some power
is lost. I have seen claims of a loss of as much as an inch or
more. I use the Beech filter because Norm said it had the least
loss of any he knew about. I have never measured it myself.
I do know that it is important to squeeze as much oil out of
the Brackett unit as you can before it is installed!
Take note of the indicated manifold pressure before you start
the engine. If the indicated manifold pressure on takeoff roll
is not within an inch of the ambient noted before engine start,
I would look for some problem in the intake system. There
should be less than an inch loss even considering the pressure
drop across the air filter at the high air flow of the T/O con-
dition. It has been a while since I checked, but I believe mine

1379
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

has less than a half inch drop.

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000117 181930 msg00959.tex]

1380
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Mixture Position After Shutdown

Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:20:28

In a message dated 1/24/01 5:00:11 PM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

Is this something to be concerned with on IO-

520/IO-550 engines also??
Pete Tracy Bishop, California A36 N54DG

Good Evening Pete.

Not at all. There are no diaphragms in the Fuel Injection
system used in the later Continental engines. The PS5C that
was used on all of the E series engine and the Bendix fuel
injection system does use a fuel controller that has a series
of diaphragms to balance and evaluate the various pressures
involved to arrive at the amount of fuel that is shoved into the
engine.
The early version of both had diaphragms that were made of
a rubber substance that would take a set if left in idle cutoff.
They also were very sensitive to loosing their elasticity and
required that they either be treated with oil or supplied with
fresh fuel every week or so to maintain a proper working con-
dition. Newer synthetic versions no longer have the problem,
but it was a good idea to park the E-series powered Bonanzas
with the mixture in full rich and most folks still do that.
On engines equipped with the Continental mechanical fuel
injection system, the mixture can be left anywhere that you
desire and it won’t affect the system in any way. However,
many folks feel that there is some safety in leaving the mixture
in idle cutoff and the throttle full closed so that the engine will
not run should it somehow end up with a hot mag and the
propellor be turned. If the mixture is left full rich and the
throttle left open, there is an outside possibility that moving
a prop with a hot mag could lead to a disaster.
I park my IO-550 with the controls in idle cutoff and throt-
tle closed. Some folks like to park with both in the forward
position because it makes it a little easier to get out of the
airplane.
I don’t suppose it makes much difference either way.
Happy Skies,

1381
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010124 182028 msg01681.tex]

1382
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Mixture and Mountain Flying

Wed, 8 Apr 1998 15:52:34

Good Afternoon Charlie Gibbs,

In a message dated 98-04-08 13:52:44 EDT, you write:

I have a question to ask those of you who rou-

tinely fly in the mountains. Any comments would
be appreciated.
Charlie Gibbs

Well, here goes! If you have a good six cylinder EGT such as
the GEM or JPI, I would suggest leaning till you get the same
EGT readings that you have on a sea level T/O.
If you have a high tech fuel flow gauge and you have great
confidence in it’s accuracy, lean to the fuel flow that your
power chart says you should have for the T/O power devel-
oped. That can be a tough figure to locate, but will work if
you have the numbers.
If you are lacking sophisticated instrumentation, leaning to
smoothness and then richening to a little roughness and then
back till it just smooths out will work on most any nonsuper-
charged engine.
At the altitude you are asking about you could probably lean
for best power (peak RPM, NOT peak EGT!!) on the ground
and still be OK, but I would probably go a little richer anyhow.
Ok guys and gals, cut me to ribbons!!
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980408 155234 msg01884.tex]

1383
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Oversquare
Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:08:18

In a message dated 9/8/99 11:22:57 AM Central Daylight

Time, [email protected] writes:

I noticed the Sept 99 Light Plane Maintenance

magazine is reviving that old maxim that run-
ning lower RPM than MP is bad for your en-
gine. For example running 2200 RPM, 25” will
wear out your cylinders faster than 2500 RPM,
22 ”. Their argument seems to be based on a
lot of graphs and theory, without any practical
evidence, so I don’t place much credence in it.
It would be nice to have some data, like running
a twin with one engine at high RPM, the other
at low RPM, at the same HP, to TBO.
Comments anyone?
Bob Briggs F33A

Good Afternoon Bob,

The article was quite interesting and may be factual. There
may be an increase in cylinder wear under the conditions they
discuss, but that doesn’t mean that the best overall operation
of the engine will occur using high RPM and low manifold
pressure.
Once again, it depends!
The DC-7 had engines that were not noted for their longevity
but which had a very high power to weight ratio and produced
excellent specific fuel consumption figures. The DC-6 engines
were considered more reliable and lower cost to operate. How-
ever, the DC-7 could fly much longer legs than could the DC-6
and it was therefore the preferred airplane for such operations
even though the engines cost more to maintain.
Any engine operation has to be discussed based on the specific
application to which the engine is being applied.
What is best for the long ranger may not be the best for the
local service operator and neither one of those may operate
the engine in the same manner that would be the best for
someone involved in training.

1384
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990908 130818 msg08104.tex]

1385
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Oversquare
Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:54:48

In a message dated 9/8/99 1:33:24 PM Central Daylight Time,

[email protected] writes:

Bob,
After the crews learned to actually operate the
DC-7 engines ... always on the lean side at cruise,
the service time on those engines ended up going
to well over 3000 hour TBOs.
John Miller has some 20,000 hours in Connies,
or 80,000 hours. Only had one 3350 barf on him
the whole time, and that was a bearing failure
on a main.
*****************
I can show you data that argues strongly that,
for example, 27” x 2200 RPM and 100F ROP is
NOT good for the engine.... but 30” x 2200 RPM
at 50 LOP *IS VERY GOOD* for the engine, in
terms of the internal cylinder pressure and where
the peak cylinder pressure occurs.
Regards, George

Good Afternoon George,

I have no argument with anything you have stated above. Our
3350s on the DC-7s went to well over 3000 hours TBO as well.
The P&Ws on the DC-6s went even better I believe they were
at 3600 when we parked them.
Incidentally, we who were the early operators of the 3350 com-
pound engine tended to run them very much as they were
designed to be operated. We went to extensive classroom
programs on the engine and were quite well prepared.
The problem with them came later after they had been rel-
egated to second class status. Crews were checked out in
them without the extensive extra training that we early troops
had enjoyed and the irregular engine removal rate went right
through the roof. My airline retired the 7s and continued to
operate the 6s because it was cheaper than training the troops
on the proper operation of the engine.

1386
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Even when the engine was operated to it’s greatest advantage,

it was never as reliable or as long lived as the P&W. However,
the performance available was well worth the extra cost of
operation for the way they were designed to be used. I flew
the DC-7 for the entire eleven years it was in service with our
airline, the first four years as copilot and the last seven years
as captain. It was by far my favorite piston engined airplane,
but the Pratts were more reliable.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990908 145448 msg08114.tex]

1387
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Oversquare Operation
Sun, 1 Feb 1998 00:07:00

Good Evening Doug Steen,

In a message dated 98-01-31 20:04:51 EST, you write:

Oversquare is approved for this engine; I pre-

sume the low compression helps tolerate high
oversquare operation.

There has never been an ”oversquare” limitation on any engine

that I know of in any Bonanza.
There are suggested limits of cruise operation and for most of
the ”O” series it is something like a maximum of 24 inches
MP at 2000 RPM or thereabouts!
I can’t for the life of me figure out where these old wives tails
come from. I have heard it said that they have a history from
the big round engines but that is certainly not the way I was
taught to operate those engines fifty years ago.
This stupidity came upon the scene in the late fifties and early
sixties and we have been stuck with it ever since.
Thank goodness more and more people are beginning to un-
derstand their engines better and hopefully some of these
falsehoods will be put to rest!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980201 000700 msg00689.tex]

1388
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Oversquare Operation
Sun, 1 Feb 1998 09:12:19

Good Morning Doug Steen,

In a message dated 98-02-01 08:02:49 EST, you write:

The POH for my plane shows power settings way

over square, much more over square than your O
engine. It is in the plane so not available for ex-
act verification here. My estimate is 25.5 inches
at 1850 rpm.

How True!! In fact the very earliest manuals had cruise RPMs
shown as low as 1300!
Notice also that that those are not listed as limits, merely
suggested power settings. The only restrictive statement on
the E-185-1 was to not exceed 2050 RPM in cruise.
The more important factor is to be sensitive to your airplanes
individual sweet spots.
There is generally a combination of MP and RPM where vi-
bration is the least. High RPM will often aid in avoiding or
at least masking a vibration problem, but if the engine has
good distribution, even compression and is properly balanced
it may well operate very smoothly at many different selections
of MP and RPM.
Some of the hogwash about leaning procedures and ”over-
square” operation did creep into some of the later manuals
but that I believe was due to the pervasiveness of the rumor!
I never saw an authoritative text or engineering paper that
supported either contention.
Remember too that 23 inches of MP at sea level is not the same
power that 23 inches is at seven thousand feet. At the higher
altitudes, more air goes into the cylinder for any given MP due
to the reduced backpressure on the exhaust. Consequently it
is necessarry to use less MP at the higher altitudes than down
low to get the same percentage of power.
Nothing is easy is it!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19980201 091219 msg00693.tex]

1389
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Oversquare Operation
Sun, 1 Feb 1998 09:32:31

Good Morning Once Again Doug Steen,

A small addendum to my previous post, The early airplanes
with wooden prop blades operated much nicer at the low
RPMs. Metal blades are much more vibration sensitive. That
is another reason for the large differences in operating charac-
teristics between individual airplanes. The resonance charac-
teristics of the individual airframe, engine and propeller com-
bination get very specific.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980201 093231 msg00694.tex]

1390
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Oversquare Operation
Sun, 1 Feb 1998 19:09:49

Good Evening Reinhard,

In a message dated 98-02-01 11:59:29 EST, you write:

has always been and is even now taught in every

ground school class on the subject of C/S prop
operation: that you shall avoid high MP with
low RPM, and that you therefore make power
adjustments in the poper sequence

Even this widely taught procedure has very little application

to our UNSUPERCHARGED engines.
It has not always been the hard and fast rule that is taught
today. This old wives tale owes it’s existence the turbo super-
charged engines of WW II.
The thought was that the sequence of throttle and RPM ad-
justments that were necessary for those turbo-supercharged
engines should be taught to all pilots because they didn’t
know what anyone might be flying. Not a bad idea for a
high pressure training program. Unfortunately it has led to
the situation we have today where people are afraid to make
adjustments to their power plants such as reducing the RPM
after T/O without reducing the throttle.
Many of the big round engines comfortably accepted RPM
reductions with no adjustment of the throttle. It’s a little
involved to explain here but it has to do with gear driven su-
perchargers as opposed to turbo driven ones. For maximum
efficiency of operation one should know how to properly op-
erate the engine he is operating and not be stuck with broad-
based training expedients long after the need has gone by.
This is not the only training expedient that has been pro-
moted falsely by our industry but it is one of the most widely
believed.
Have you ever been told by a multiengine instructor to never
make a turn into a dead engine?
That was another one that took a long time to overcome.
There are lots of others.
Keep an open mind and question all of the ”hard and fast”
rules. That’s when education occurs.

1391
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980201 190949 msg00708.tex]

1392
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Power Setting
Fri, 28 Aug 1998 02:11:36

Good Morning Chris Shaker,

In a message dated 98-08-27 14:22:05 EDT, you write:

I seem to recall someone saying that leaving the

RPM up and the MP low (resulting in using the
engine for braking) during descents is *bad*, and
could result in taking the choke out of the cylin-
ders?

I don’t know about taking out the choke but it does tend to
make the rings chatter and has been implicated in problems
with ring land failure.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980828 021136 msg04912.tex]

1393
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Power Setting
Tue, 8 Sep 1998 14:32:26

Good Afternoon Scott Derrick,

In a message dated 9/8/98 12:38:28 PM Central Daylight
Time, sderrick@yahoo- eng.com writes:

Of interest to me was the idea of reducing RPM

after gear up without reducing MP. I pull back
the RPM to 2300 and MP to 23” after climbing
through 500+ agl.
A couple of days ago I tried pulling the RPM
back first, the MP only rose 1/2” when I reduced
RPM, then I pulled the MP back to 23”. Doing
it the other way around always require pulling
the MP back, pulling the RPM back, then read-
justing the MP. Thus saving a step.
Is this truly safe??

I don’t remember what type engine you have but I would sug-
gest that on any normally aspirated Bonanza, the procedure
should be to leave the throttle wide open until you either start
a descent for landing or set up cruise at such a low altitude
that wide open throttle would result in a manifold pressure
above that which you desire to use for cruise.
All of the unsupercharged Continentals used in the various
Bonanzas and it’s derivatives have rather wide spreads of al-
lowable RPM and MP. Full throttle is an efficient way to get
the power out of the engine and there is little reason to reduce
from that setting if you are trying to gain altitude rapidly.
The only time I would consider using less than full throttle for
climb would be when I desired to gain the absolute maximum
range from the fuel on board. I would then establish a low
enough power to meet my comfort zone for operating on the
lean side of best power and climb at that lean power setting.
Generally speaking, I find that a full throttle climb puts me
to altitude so much faster that the small penalty of operating
rich for the time required is insignificant to the overall trip
efficiency.
There are no unsupercharged Bonanzas that need to have the
MP reduced before the RPM is pulled back.

1394
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

How much the RPM is reduced is a variable depending on

which engine you have. In any case, it is best if the RPM
reduction is done smoothly and deliberately.
Which engine do you have and in what airframe?
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980908 143226 msg05314.tex]

1395
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Power Setting
Fri, 14 Jan 2000 13:23:05

In a message dated 1/14/00 11:19:39 AM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

When we go LOP then it follows to extract the

most power from the burn we should be running
a lower rpm? If so, as a practical matter how
much lower? 2300, 2200, 2100?

Good Morning John,

I don’t have any data available to me that would let me know
what the optimum RPM, high or low, would be at any par-
ticular mixture and manifold pressure combination.
I would imagine Continental has the information and I am
sure that George has developed that data on his new dyno
setup.
It would be nice if we all had torquemeters on our airplanes.
While Texas Instrument messed around with a torque meter
mounted on the engine mount of an R985 a few years ago,
I don’t know any that have been developed for our class of
aircraft.
In a perfect world, we would be able to choose the horsepower
we wanted to use for cruise. We would then select an RPM and
manifold pressure combination that the book told us was in
the ball park considering our altitude and temperature. Next
we would adjust the timing as the engine was leaned to assure
that the peak power pulse occurred at the optimum time. Too
many variables there for me to comfortably handle!
The ”one lever controls all” engine control systems that are
being developed should be able to juggle all of those factors
and give us a reasonable compromise.
Meanwhile, if you wish to utilize lean of peak EGT operation,
monitor the EGT for a rise in EGT toward the very lean
side. If that occurs, the fire is burning a little too late in the
cycle and either advancing the spark or otherwise changing
the timing of the peak power pulse would be in order. Since
the only control we generally have over the timing while flying
is to adjust the rate of burning by varying the mixture or the
point of peak combustion by changing the RPM, one of those
would be required. I have assumed here that the manifold

1396
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

pressure available is fixed. If the cylinder pressure can be

increased, the fire will burn faster, giving us one more way of
adjusting the timing.
I don’t have any idea how great a change would be necessary
in any particular situation! Sure would be nice to see what is
happening on that dynamometer!
If your normal leaning does give you a rise in EGT as you get
to the lean side, I would suggest that you check the timing to
ascertain that it is right on spec. If the timing is OK and you
still get the rise, you could try operating at a lower RPM or
a higher manifold pressure, but I don’t know if it would help
or not. Theoretically, it should.
As an aside, when I was gainfully employed operating the big
round engines, we were given maximum RPM limits above
which we were not allowed to lean aggressively.
I tend to avoid aggressively leaning the mixture on my IO-
550B when operating at low manifold pressures and high RPMs
such as above ten or twelve thousand feet. Nothing scientific,
just the way I do it!
For What It’s Worth!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000114 132305 msg00818.tex]

1397
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Power Setting
Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:39:03

In a message dated 1/17/00 3:09:52 PM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

I’m new at this, but the procedure I’ve been

working with has been to stay WOT from brake
release until descent. Initial climbout at full throt-
tle & Vy, then reduce rpm to 2500 or lower and
transition to cruise climb, LOP and cowl flaps
closed, CHT permitting (which they have been,
I don’t think I’ve seen over 350, but it is winter).
Check mixture periodically during the climb to
stay well LOP, but other than that I pretty much
leave it alone. I try to cruise climb at about
500 fpm, which means a fast airspeed down low
where I need the cooling and slower at altitude
where I don’t. Once at altitude I reduce RPM
further to 2100-2300 and adjust the mixture again.
What I’d really like to do is skip the 2500 RPM
for the climb segment and make the initial power
reduction all the way back to my cruise RPM &
LOP setting, but I haven’t been comfortable do-
ing that.

Good Evening Dave,

Sounds to me as if you are currently operating your airplane
more aggresively than I am operating mine! It is my very
uneducated guess that what you are doing is likely to be OK.
I also like to leave the thottle wide open as long as practical
and I do make an RPM reduction soon after takeoff. I nor-
mally go to 2550 or 2500 but I would be hesitant to pull it
back any further as the RPM reduction has the same effect as
advancing the timing and I believe the engine in takeoff con-
dition is firing a little earlier than would be optimum anyway!
You mention that you go immediately to a lean of peak climb
power. That should have a result equivalent to retarding the
spark somewhat and might compensate for the reduced RPM.
I just haven’t had the guts to try it!
Let us know how things work out.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob

1398
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

[ARTICLES/20000117 183903 msg00962.tex]

1399
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Power Settings
Wed, 27 May 1998 17:20:56

Good Afternoon Bob Layne,

In a message dated 98-05-27 15:34:02 EDT, you write:

I can live with the additional gallon/hr or so of

fuel; are there other reasons why it’s clearly bet-
ter to operate at 65% (or less) power settings? In
the long run, will it make a difference in engine
life?

Well here is one uneducated comment: It always seems to me

that the Continental likes to run at high power. The tem-
peratures can be kept up so that the water is boiled out of
the oil and the heads stay hot enough to reduce the amount
of lead that is precipitated. She works hard and enjoys it. I
would think that an engine run that way and flown the fac-
tory recommended 40 hours per month should easily make it
to normal TBO.
Having said that, I perceive a few difficulties adapting that
type operation to the way I like to fly my airplane. I don’t
like to operate with high RPM and low manifold pressure. I
don’t have my power charts here with me, but from memory I
believe it would take around 2700 RPM to get 75 % power at
eight thousand feet and I rarely like to fly below that altitude.
At eight thousand feet my MP is usually somewhere between
21 and 22 inches depending on temp, pressure etc. For that
low a manifold pressure the engine doesn’t seem to like an
RPM higher than 2300 and even feels a little better at 2200
and that equates to something under 65 %!
Every engine text I have ever read says that I should try to
operate at the highest MP and the lowest RPM allowed for
any certain percent of power. I believe 75 % at six thousand
feet is around 24 inches at 2450 or so on an average day and
that seems to be a nice power setting if you don’t mind flying
that low. I personally do that every now and then. As you
say, it feels good to have it zip along like that.
The problem that I have is the tremendous loss in efficiency
that occurs from flying at those speeds. The greatest efficiency
will come if you fly the airplane at the best lift over drag speed.
It is hard to do that except during climb or descent so most
experts recommend using a speed between 105 and 110 % of

1400
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

best L/D for maximum range and economy. Increasing that

speed to 130 or 140 % of best L/D doesn’t seem to hurt too
much but there is a point where economy and range really
suffer.
If I fly my airplane at 6000 feet and 75 % power, the nautical
miles per gallon are around 10.5 to 10.7, if I go to a little higher
altitude and bring it back to 65 %, I can lean to the lean side
of best power and usually even to the lean side of peak EGT.
The miles per gallon will rise to 12.7 to 12.9 while the speed
only drops about twelve to fourteen knots. If maximum range
is desirable, the mpg can be raised as high as 14 at reasonable
altitudes and airspeeds.
For me, cost of operation is a factor. When time is the most
costly, I will operate at the highest power legal and go as
fast as I can, but on most flights, operation at eight to ten
thousand feet and 60 to 65 percent power settings save a con-
siderable amount of money and cost me very little in time
spent in the air and besides that, I like to fly!
If your trips are all relatively short, you don’t have the need
for high altitudes and cost is no factor, push it as hard as you
want. The engine likes it. Just be sure that the temps and
pressure are all kept within limits and there is adequate fuel
(or air if you like to operate on the lean side of peak EGT)
available for the necessary cooling at the high power settings.
Be sure that your instruments are all well calibrated. Even
new gauges (including new digital electronic stuff) are often
out of calibration and if you are operating toward the edge,
you want accurate information.
More than you wanted wasn’t it!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980527 172056 msg02861.tex]

1401
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

RPM During Climb

Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:51:19

In a message dated 2/23/00 6:32:30 AM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

Jeff,
Interesting comment on the 2300 vs. 2400rpm
setting. You are right about the book only listing
2500 and 2300 tables. I guess that I was trying to
compromise between going as fast a possible and
being gentle with the engine by running 2400.
I am going to rethink that unless someone can
show me that 2400rpm is o.k. ”by the book.”

Good Morning Earl,

You are reading way too much into the idea of ”By The Book”!
Any RPM within the allowable operating range of the engine
is OK as long as it seems smooth to you. There is nothing
magic about 2300 or 2500. Those are just convenient points
which someone used to present numbers to use while you learn
how to operate the engine.
Fact is that you may well be operating at 2250 or 2340 when
you think you are at 2300! There is often an error of 50 RPM
or more in the mechanical tachometers and it is not consistent
day to day.
Set it where it runs well and lean by whatever method you
prefer until the engine is performing to your satisfaction and
you will be within the approved parameters.
Incidentally, there has been considerable discussion recently
concerning the accuracy of the fuel pressure gauges which are
calibrated in fuel flow and used on the majority of the fuel
injected Bonanzas and derivatives.
Those gauges are often rather inaccurate, but they tend to be
consistent. If you will calibrate them occasionally, they seem
to maintain a more consistent reading than do the mechanical
tachs.
There are a plethora of good, economical and accurate elec-
tronic fuel flow gauges and tachometers available on the mar-
ket and if you are desirous of operating your engine at numbers
that are so precise as 2300 or 2400 or 2500, then you should

1402
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

invest in those electronic instruments.

But if you are going to climb at full throttle and full rich,
cruise at low powers and lean till you feel comfortable, lean or
rich, that precision is not required and you can do just about
anything you want with the levers on the engine. The gauges
are almost superfluous.
Along that line, for those of you who are religiously following
the rich of peak philosophy that has snuck into engine opera-
tion in the last thirty years or so, you can continue to operate
the engine with whatever magic method you have been using
and still safely install the balanced fuel injectors.
They will save enough fuel to increase your range around eight
percent if you don’t change any of your engine operating pro-
cedures.
I realize that money is no object to the folks on this list, but
the balanced injectors will pay for themselves in 400 hours
or so even in engines that are operated with the EGT at 150
degrees rich of peak.
Well, I wandered quite a bit away from the subject of oper-
ating the engine by the numbers, but the point I am trying
to make is that there is no way that the manual for the air-
craft can be made thick enough to contain all of the approved
and proper operating parameters that are applicable to the
operation of the engine!
Secondary point is that the gauges just aren’t all that accurate
or consistent in readings.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000223 095119 msg03410.tex]

1403
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

RPM for Takeoff

Wed, 26 Jan 2000 18:52:34

In a message dated 1/26/00 4:57:36 PM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

Bob: Do you actually use 2500 for takeoff from

the ground? Would you on a 2500’ strip? Steve

Good Evening Steve,

No, I use 2700 for takeoff, though one of my neighbors does
use 2500 if he is not too heavy. I wait till I am airborne,
suck up the gear and when I am satisfied that I will clear all
obstacles, I suck up the flaps and bring the RPM down to
2500 or 2550.
Our strip is 2339 feet between displaced thresholds and the
thresholds are based on twenty to one slopes from obstacles on
both ends. Each end is displaced a hundred and fifty to two
hundred feet, so that equates to about a 2500 foot strip from
the beginning of the take off roll to crossing the far threshold.
At medium weights and average temperatures I will generally
have the RPM down to whatever I am going to use some time
before crossing the far threshold. That allows me to be as
high as possible and operating as quietly as practical when I
cross over the homes off the end of the runway.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000126 185234 msg01797.tex]

1404
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

RPM vs. MP
Mon, 6 Sep 1999 09:25:50

In a message dated 9/6/99 2:39:15 AM Central Daylight Time,

[email protected] writes:

In my distant past training on supercharged en-

gines it was important to reduce MAP first as
you will overboost the engine if you reduce RPM
first. Seems strange that the T-Bone procedures
have you reducing RPM first.

Good Morning Once Again Ralph,

Even as long ago as I was trained on the big round super-
charged engines, we were taught to the same as you. However,
when I got out on the line, some of the old prewar types made
the point that the procedure was not really applicable to gear
driven superchargers.
They claimed that it was one of those decisions made to ”stan-
dardize” training during the war so as to get the most number
of aircraft over the target with the least amount of teaching.
It was demonstrated to me that on the 1830 powered DC-
3, you could bring the RPM back first and the boost would
decrease. Were the RPM to be increased without touching the
throttle, the manifold pressure would go up. The effect was
not always the same, and varied with different power settings
even on the same engine model, but it was repeatable using
certain specified power settings.
I was told that on the turbo supercharged engines, this was not
the case. Reducing the RPM first would increase the exhaust
pressure which would then lead to more boost and result in
blowing the heads off! I don’t know if that is wholly true, but
it was given as the reason to train with the procedure that is
now standard.
Most of the old-timers would make the first power reduction
from T/O to climb power by reducing the MP followed by a
reduction of the RPM, but from then on, all of the changes
were made RPM first and MP afterward, both when increasing
and when decreasing power.
When those fellows went on to the larger airplanes and I
started to fly with the WW II trained types, they would go
absolutely through the roof if I were to even think about doing

1405
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

it that way!
When the Twin Bonanza was introduced, I was rather sur-
prised at the recommended operation procedures given, but
as I thought back to the advice given by those prewar avia-
tors, it began to make sense and it really worked great on the
T-Bone for all of the time I flew them.
One of theses days I will pontificate about another reason to
use a high drag approach which is associated with this same
phenomena. But I gotta get to work now!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990906 092550 msg07950.tex]

1406
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

RPM vs. MP
Fri, 9 Feb 2001 13:03:50

In a message dated 2/9/01 11:12:24 AM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

I have a question...all of the instructors I have

ever talked to have said Props ahead of engines...i.e.
always have the RPMs ahead of the manifold
pressure. To do otherwise...I was taught, is hard
on the engines and prop shafts. I was told not to
put engines ahead of props unless otherwise ap-
proved in the POH as a recommended setting...(a
la B58 2300rpm 24”)
Is this incorrect? ————————-

Good Morning Richard,

Not incorrect.
It is incomplete.
There is a lot more to engine management than can be ex-
plained in a paragraph or two.
During W.W.II, there was an effort to simplify the training as
much as possible. Rather than teaching all of the ifs, ands and
buts, they tried to come up with procedures that were easy to
teach and not likely to be harmful, but were not necessarily the
most efficient or the best for the operation to be conducted.
That was were a lot of the Old Wives Tales we are currently
saddled with came from.
When the war was over, the majority of the professionals in-
volved with expanding the aviation industry were those pilots
who had been trained via those war time training expedien-
cies.
Stupid things such as the admonition to never turn into the
dead engine permeated the environment.
The most ignominious, such as the prohibition against turning
into the dead engine, have been expunged from most training
programs, but ones which have little negative effect and are
handy to teach to new pilots, such as the RPM first, manifold
pressure next are still firmly entrenched.
Once one looks at the situation with open eyes and gains a

1407
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

little more knowledge of the ways of engine operation, it is

obvious that there are many exceptions to the general rule
that are a little easier on, and more efficient for, the engine.
Any help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010209 130350 msg03268.tex]

1408
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Shock Cooling
Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:00:16

In a message dated 9/7/99 11:39:46 PM Central Daylight

Time, [email protected] writes:

I’m at 145 and 108 kias. It doesn’t take long to

get it down to 145 knots (chop power and pull up
the nose). With the gear down I’m at 108 soon
and down go the flaps. I came in a couple weeks
ago at cruise descent of 178 knots and pulled
it right down within a few miles of the airport
after a descent from 9,000 to 1500 feet, coming
down right on the button. The air was smooth
of course as it was just prior to sunset.

Good Morning John,

It is fun to see what the machine will do isn’t it?
While there is certainly nothing wrong with extending the
gear and flaps at the limit speeds, I do believe that there will
be less wear and tear on the mechanism if the speed is lowered
to the minimum practical before the mechanism is activated.
As an example, I normally slow to about 120 before extending
the gear and 105 to 110 before hanging out the flaps.
Your comment, ”chop the power,” is interesting. I find it very
hard to do that! For so many years of my life, I have been
cautioned to handle the power controls of the engine slowly
and deliberately, that I have my gear warning horn set to blow
at 17 inches and I rarely reduce the manifold pressure below
that amount before extending the gear. The admonition to
”keep the engine pulling” was said to help avoid ring chatter
and piston land cracking. We have all been warned of the
dangers of shock cooling of the heads.
The things that Bob Hoover does with his engine during his
routine seem to indicate that my concern for adherence to
those ”Old Wives Tales” of engine operation are superfluous!
George Braly and others have presented evidence that the
shock cooling worry is misplaced, there does not seem to be
any evidence of abnormal piston land or ring breakage prob-
lems with the Continentals and I don’t have any idea why the
darn things have started to exhibit so much cylinder wear the
last few years. (I do think we would be a little better off if
they used a little more oil initially, but that is an opinion not

1409
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

scientifically grounded.)
As hard as I try, my engine gets pretty cool before landing,
which is another reason I don’t like touch and goes and I avoid
go-arounds as much as possible. By carrying as much drag as
practical, I keep my engine as warm as I can in case that go-
around is inevitable. The folks who don’t do that seem to
have just as good engine life as do I so my concerns are likely
misplaced!
Even considering all of that, I still recommend slow and de-
liberate power changes and that an effort be made to keep the
engine pulling. I don’t think it can hurt and it MAY help.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990908 100016 msg08090.tex]

1410
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

Speed
Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:46:01

In a message dated 2/15/01 7:52:43 PM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:
Just brought my V35B back from MSP to CLE.
after having the BDS IO550 with Gamis.installed
was a beautiful VFR all the way.....I cruised at
9500 due to better winds aloft......I took some
crude reading....Full throtle[21.5mp],and 2350....LOP
my TAS was 174K and ROP it was 177K.....Both
were 25Deg each side with a GEM.....Question?
Is this about right?????/ I thought I’d go faster.....John
Good Evening John,
How fast was your Bonanza before?
I also have a V35B with an IO-550, GAMIs and the BDS
conversion kit installed.
Now, I know that my airplane is a heavy and slow Bonanza.
There are probably plenty around that are at least ten knots
faster than mine.
My airplane cruises around 165 to 167 at the power setting
that you were using.
174 would be pretty exciting for me!
But I wonder just how close to the same power we are talking
about. It would be very helpful if you could tell us the amount
of fuel being burned. Provided that you have some sort of
accurate device for determining the fuel burn, that is by far
the best way to determine the power output of the engine.
If you are operating 25 degrees lean of peak EGT, you can
multiply the fuel burn in gallons by 14.9 and come up with a
quite accurate number for the horsepower you are developing.
In order to really know how well the airplane is doing, it is
important to know the power developed.
It would also help to know the gross weight at the time.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010215 224601 msg03963.tex]

1411
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Use of the Engine to Slow Down

Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:16:31

In a message dated 2/8/01 11:41:18 AM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

I’ve see a lot of response to this but there was one

thing I haven’t seen (or maybe I missed)...if you
go FULL FINE on the prop, that will create a lot
of drag...instead of, as somebody said, 15” and
2100 RPM...go 15” and FINE (or at least 2500).
This is how my instructor first schooled me on
how to slow down a Piper Arrow I used to fly
frequently...until a guy buried into a mountain
in the Adirondacks in a hail storm. —————
———- Richard

Good Morning Richard,

That procedure will undoubtedly slow the airplane down. It
MAY not be hard on the engine, however, it MAY cause the
rings to chatter and do bad things to the rings, ring lands and
other things that are flying around in those little engines on
which we rely.
The commonly accepted theory has been that the engine lasts
the longest if a balance is made between the RPM and the
manifold pressure such that there is always enough pressure
on the rings to keep them seated and stable. I know that I
have subscribed to a lot of Old Wives Tales over the years
which have subsequently been found to either never have had
or, at least, not now have application.
That may be the case, but shoving the prop up creates drag
because the propellor is being driven by the airflow and is
subsequently driving the engine instead of the engine driving
the prop.
That drag has to come from somewhere. I think it is detri-
mental and would not recommend it’s use unless it is the only
safe way to get slowed in a situation where safety is in question
if I don’t slow down.
I would never plan on using that technique as an optional way
to add drag to the airplane.
While we are on the subject of slowing down, I would be more
likely to throw out the gear a speed slightly above the gear

1412
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE

speed than I would to put the flaps out above the limiting
speed.
I do think that there is likely to be a speed where partial flaps
could be used safely, but I have never researched for, or seen,
published data which would encourage me to do so. I know
the later airplanes have an approach flap position that has a
higher limit for fifteen degrees of flap. I would not be surprised
if my flaps are just as strong as those on one of those airplanes.
If I really wanted to use that fifteen degrees for drag at 152
knots, I would check the parts book to see if the parts were
all the same. That still wouldn’t make it legal, but I probably
wouldn’t be concerned if they were dropped a little early.
For What It’s Worth!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010208 131631 msg03133.tex]

1413
10.2. OPERATE-ENGINE CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Winter baffles
Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:30:22

In a message dated 3/1/00 9:47:28 AM Central Standard Time,

[email protected] writes:

Good evening Steve Kolacz, I notice that the 3

highest cylinders seem to be 2, 4, & 6. I wonder
if all the baffles are installed correctly on the left
side?

Good Morning Jerry,

That is typical of the factory supplied winter baffles when used
with the IO-520 in the late model airplane and with factory
baffling. I trimmed down a set in an effort to equalize things
before I decided to limit the use of the winter baffles to only
the most extreme cold conditions.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000301 113022 msg03997.tex]

1414
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES

10.3 OPERATE-ESERIES

1415
10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Hot Starts
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:45:26

In a message dated 1/24/01 11:24:24 AM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

I have an older Bonanza with out a boost pump.

Hand pump only , & no primer. What procedure
works best for hot starts. I thought I had it
but lo and behold, I have had trouble getting it
started. Other than add a boost pump, what
can I do? Can I use the same procedure with
my hand pump? With the hand pump dosen’t
fuel get pumped on the ground once the carb is
presurized? Jerry Frank

Good Morning Jerry,

I am no engine expert, but I have never noted a hot start
problem with the PS5C.
The injection carburetor hangs below the engine and even the
old engine driven fuel pump is kinda out in the open on the
lower left side of the crankcase.
There are no fuel lines to the cylinders for the fuel to boil in
whether the proponents of that thought are right or wrong!
I personally like the hand pump better than the electric for
starting the E series engine. I think it allows much more pre-
cise control of the amount of fuel being injected into the intake
air spider above the PS5C. As you note, applying pressure to
the PS5C causes fuel to run out onto the ground if the engine
is not cranking.
I would be especially careful not to flood it.
Try setting the throttle at a position that would allow about
one thousand RPM if it were running. Set the mixture full
rich.
Crank the engine. If it fires before you stroke the pump, give
it a quick stroke to keep it running. If it doesn’t fire after
the prop has spun over three or four blades, just gently start
pumping the hand pump and it should fire right up, if the
engine fuel pump doesn’t keep the fuel pressure steady, give it
just enough help with the hand pump to keep the fuel pressure
needle steady.

1416
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES

That should take care of any problem with the engine driven
fuel pump being vapor locked.
It is important that the hand pump be working properly. Like-
wise, the PS5C must be in good shape as well. Both of those
units will continue to operate reasonably well long after they
should have been overhauled. If both are in good shape, the
PS5C allows very close control of fuel and air delivery to the
engine.
Historically, the E series with the PS5C has been the easiest
to start of the bunch, regardless of the temperature!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010124 124526 msg01651.tex]

1417
10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Improving Fuel Distribution

Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:22:04

In a message dated 1/11/00 9:52:36 PM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

Mike I have a E-225-8 too, though mines in-

jected. I couldn’t get any answers either. There
are no GAMI’s for the 225, and in your case
with the carburated engine not much you can
do to balance the fuel mixture going into indi-
vidual cylinders. When I get everything LOP I
lose about 9 knots and the engine runs rough. So
I am going back to the way I did it before EGT’s
and engine analyzers. Lean till it runs rough and
then enriched it until the engine smoothes out.
In that mode I have a cylinder that runs at close
to 400 degrees F. I open the cowl flaps about an
inch and it cools down to about 390.

Good Morning Mike and Al,

I would just like to mention that I have had some luck with im-
proving the distribution in engines equipped with the PS5C.
The first straight 35 that I owned had almost perfect distri-
bution. Upon leaning the power would rise, then drop off
smoothly till the engine quit. Just like the text books said it
should!
I flew other airplanes with the PS5C that did not do as well, so
I started to try various procedures to improve the fuel balance
to that which I had enjoyed on my first Bonanza.
I was not always successful, but I was doing strictly trial and
error. Nothing scientific!
The first thing I would do was check the condition of the
injection tubes where the PS5C spits it’s fuel into the intake
manifold. A little bending sometimes made things worse, but
other times helped. I also messed around with smoothing out
the intake flow and other times with adding restrictions to
create turbulence. One thing that seemed to work on many
airplanes was to retard the throttle just till I could see the
MP drop a little. Maybe a quarter of an inch or so. That
meant that the enrichening jet was out of the picture and the
throttle plate was cocked enough to provide a little turbulence.
Sometimes that made the distribution worse, but on most

1418
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES

engines, it helped.
I guess what I am saying is that there are things that can be
done to improve the distribution on the E series engines if you
will just think about it and keep trying!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000112 122204 msg00671.tex]

1419
10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

LOP Operation
Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:09:45

In a message dated 1/14/00 8:51:49 PM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

Does anybody out there have an opinion as to the

consequences of running a pressure carb LOP.

Good Morning Paul,

There has been considerable discussion on this web site con-
cerning that very thing recently. Perhaps you could check the
archives for more complete information.
The fuel distribution that is obtained with the PS5C Injection
Carburetor on the E-series engine varies widely on individual
engines. Even different RPM settings will make a difference.
When I had airplanes which were PS5C equipped, I operated
on the lean side whenever practical. Some of them had almost
perfect fuel distribution while others were atrocious.
Try to find my comments of the last few days in the archives.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000115 040945 msg00854.tex]

1420
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES

Leaning
Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:53:18

Good morning Jerry,

In a message dated 97-10-28 11:16:24 EST, you write:

But at 2050 at 7500ft I’m burning 12 gpm I’m

not an agressive leaner - My EGT is broke -

Do you still have the electric prop? If so just turn it off.

(put the switch in neutral) Lean for about a 5 mph reduction
in airspeed at 7500 feet with 2050 and full throttle,(no EGT
necessary) you cannot hurt the engine at that power provided
the timing is correct. You can do it with the hydraulic prop
also but it takes a little more perceptive touch.
If the distribution is good on your engine you should easily do
the 8 gph at 10T. I really don’t remember what I burned at
7500 as I rarely flew that low. The airplane likes 10 thousand
feet but I would imagine the burn should be 10 GPH and
the true about 170 mph or a little higher if yours is a clean
airplane. The book calls for 180 in the G model with the 225
engine.
That must make a real nice airplane.
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19971028 115318 msg02240.tex]

1421
10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Leaning
Mon, 30 Mar 1998 14:30:34

Good Afternoon Bill,

In a message dated 98-03-30 13:57:55 EST, you write:
Incidentally, if you have that one-hole fuel injector, aka PS5
carb, and a GEM you will notice that closing the throttle a
minute amount at cruise will even up your egts. You need not
close it even enough to change the manifold pressure more
than a tiny fraction of an inch. Can someone explain why this
is so? I’ve noticed it on a couple of E airplanes with GEMs.

I have noted that effect for many years on the PS5C equipped engines and
theorized that it was due to one or both of two possibilities.
Throttling back that far takes it out of the enrichment mode and may affect
the distribution. The next possibility, and the one I think is more likely, is
that when the throttle plate moves just a little, a beneficial turbulence is
created that improves the distribution.
What say you?
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19980330 143034 msg01639.tex]

1422
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES

Leaning
Wed, 27 May 1998 19:19:25

Good Evening Robert Condon,

In a message dated 98-05-27 18:41:35 EDT, you write:

I just purchased a C35 with an E-185 and pressure carb. I’m

not familiar with this technology. My understanding is that I
should not have to manually lean the engine in cruise. How-
ever, on my first long trip last week I was very surprised that
it burned 14.5 gph! The book and previous owner state that
I should get 11.5 at 75%. (Electric prop @ 2150). I intend to
experiment with leaning etc., but any existing wisdom on this
would be appreciated.

This is the PS5C without an AMC unit. The same basic unit was used on
the ”H” model with an AMC unit and that reduced the necessity to lean
but didn’t eliminate it entirely.
It is an injection carburetor in that it reads the airflow and then injects the
fuel downstream from the venturi thus almost eliminating carburetor ice.
(Remember I said almost!)
It is an excellent system but does need to be leaned to operate properly.
The three gallon per hour flow back to the left main tank is due to the
pump being set up to supply more fuel than the carburetor needs. It is not
difficult to figure out and if you are a long ranger with multiple tanks the
fuel flow can be used to place a known quantity of fuel in the left tank for
a last ditch fuel reserve. I think that subject has been adequately covered
here recently.
I have been running tanks dry for over fifty years and have never experi-
enced the rough running after re-establishing fuel flow, however I tend to
set up a rather reduced power when I think I am about to run one dry and
if I don’t catch it on the fuel pressure drop, I throttle back a bit, richen the
mixture just a little bit and then gently re-establish the fuel pressure with
either a little tickle with the fuel pump or some gentle stroking of the hand
pump and then restore normal engine operation after the fuel pressure is
stabilized.
Try 8 or 10 thousand feet with full throttle and 2150 or better yet, 2050
RPM, put the prop in the manual position and lean for peak RPM, then
put the prop back in automatic (if you have it) and lean for a 5 to 10 mph
reduction in airspeed and you will be in good shape. If the engine won’t
run smooth at that power setting, check the intake pipes for proper fit and
leaks and the carburetor injection tubes for cleanliness, lack of blockages
and proper alignment. You should be able to lean to around a 15 mph

1423
10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

reduction in airspeed before the engine gets rough if the carburetor and
intake system are in good condition.
The 1952 C model with an E185-11 and the Beech electric prop is one of
the best Bonanzas ever built. You will love it!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
P.S. If you decide you don’t like it, let me know! My oldest son is looking
for just such an airplane.
[ARTICLES/19980527 191925 msg02866.tex]

1424
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES

Leaning
Tue, 29 Sep 1998 22:52:30

In a message dated 9/29/98 9:17:24 PM Central Daylight Time, classicbo-

[email protected] writes:

Some time in the near past, six to eight weeks ago, someone
posted a lean of peak test that could be used on an engine that
did not have GAMIs installed. I printed the test and thought
I had saved it to file. However, I can’t find either of them. I
have asked George Braly if he posted and that was negative.
Would who ever posted the test please repost or send to me
direct.

Good Evening Dwaine Moore,

I don’t know whether this could be considered a test or not, but it is the
method I used to use when operating E series engines to decide whether or
not to operate on the lean side of peak power, not peak EGT. It used the
only direct power indicating gauge we almost always had on the airplane,
the airspeed indicator. If one is/was fortunate enough to have the electric
prop instead of a hydraulic one, the tach also could be used in determining
power output. The drill is to start leaning the engine until peak RPM (with
the prop in manual) or peak airspeed is obtained then continue leaning until
the airspeed or RPM drops off. The procedure is continued till the engine
becomes rough or quits all together.
If the airspeed will drop 12 to 15 mph before roughness occurs, the dis-
tribution is pretty decent. If it drops twenty or more mph and then all
of the cylinders drop out at almost the same time, the mixture is almost
perfect at that particular combination of manifold pressure, throttle plate
position, RPM and horsepower.
I figured that if I could get at least a fifteen mph drop before roughness, I
could comfortably operate at a five to ten mph drop in airspeed. Nothing
scientific and the most technical I ever got was to compare the resultant
airspeeds to the performance chart in an effort to determine about what
percentage of power I was losing by operating on the lean side. Once again,
there was little scientific background to my efforts but I set a limit of 2050
as the highest RPM that I would use when operating on the lean side of
best power.
Don’t know if that helps or not!
I have Gamis now!
Happy Skies,

1425
10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator

[ARTICLES/19980929 225230 msg05715.tex]

1426
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES

Leaning
Wed, 30 Sep 1998 17:17:37

Good Afternoon Dwaine,

In a message dated 9/30/98 2:27:21 PM Central Daylight Time, classicbo-
[email protected] writes:

to operate on the lean side of peak power, not peak EGT.

Would you explain the ”not peak EGT”?

I guess that is a poor choice of words. You undoubtedly will be lean of

peak EGT by the time you get down ten or fifteen mph lean of best power.
We just didn’t have EGT gauges in those days so my reference was always
to peak power. Peak EGT seems to occur about 50 degrees C lean of best
power or at a drop in speed of around 2 or 3 mph on my current engine.
Not sure how that would compare to an E model as I never owned or flew
one with an EGT.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980930 171737 msg05720.tex]

1427
10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Leaning
Tue, 7 Sep 1999 08:42:34

In a message dated 9/7/99 2:39:27 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:
—– Original Message —– From: Marc Cook [email protected]
Now, a caveat. On my 470, I can’t always run LOP with the throttle
wide open. But I can almost always do so with the throttle very slightly
closed. Either I’ve got an induction leak or there’s some quirk of the 470
installation that needs a bit of differential across the throttle body or whole
induction system.
I’ve found this to be true on my IO470c also.
Cheers, Ralph

Good Morning Ralph, Marc and All,

I don’t have an answer, but would like to comment.
Back when I was regularly flying the ”E” series engines equipped with the PS5C Pressure
Carburetor, I found that on a few airplanes, lean operation was not comfortable. On
some of those airplanes, I noted that reducing the throttle until I could observe a quarter
to a half inch of reduction in manifold pressure would allow the engine to be operated
substantially on the lean side of best power. No EGT gauges were available back then.
This took the carburetor out of the fuel enrichment zone and that might have been
the answer, but many of my cohorts and I thought that the extra turbulence created
by the partially cocked throttle plate might have been contributing to more equal fuel
distribution and smoothing things up somewhat.
There was a tremendous difference between identically equipped and operated engines
in their ability to be operated on the lean side and with some of them, we were able to
make it work, on others, we were not.
Inducing turbulence into the induction system to improve distribution was a hot item
in automotive circles at the time and we were likely influenced by that thought.
I can see how swirling a mixture that contains the fuel might improve the distribution,
but didn’t think it would work with fuel injection. However, who knows!
For what it’s worth!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990907 084234 msg08007.tex]

1428
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES

Leaning/Preheat
Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:24:21

Hi Jerry,
In a message dated 97-10-29 01:05:22 EST, you write:

Pre heating I think also the Light might be ok if I put one on the external
tank and one on the bottom of the motor. What do you think?

The Tanis or competitive fixed engine heaters seem to be very helpful in preheating.
There are some problems with excessive localized heating and it adds a lot of wires and
things to get in the way during maintenance. I personally don’t like the heaters in the
CHT probe holes as I want those for their originally designed purpose and I wonder
about how effective the heaters are there. The new band style cylinder barrel heaters
might be the answer for people who want the Tanis or other fixed heaters. There is
more to that system than meets the eye.
In the days when I flew ”E” powered airplanes, those fixed heaters where not available
and I couldn’t have afforded them anyway.
I used light bulbs and lots of big thick old blankets. Worked just fine! I always placed
one near the oil tank, one under the crankcase (not withstanding the Ford Tri-Motor, we
old fuddy duddys have engines in our airplanes, not motors) and one under the battery.
I was a little concerned about overheating in localized areas and feel that it is necessary
to experiment carefully with the size of the bulbs used and their placement to avoid that
problem.
I occasionally carried the equipment with me so as to be able to use preheat while away
from home.
Placing the bulbs and hooking things up is a lot more time consuming than using the
Tanis style system but you don’t have to do it all of the time.
Adequate covers for the engine are imperative for either system and if you have to be
outside, it can be tough to get things sealed up against the wind. Nothing is easy is it?
I could afford the Tanis system now but have elected not to install one at this time.
My airplane lives in a nice heated hangar and rarely flies to places where preheating
would be required. In the last ten years I have had to rent space in heated hangars
a couple of times and have paid as high as $45 per night for the privilege. So far it
has worked OK for me but everyones situation is different. Freezing rain, ice and snow
avoidance has been part of the decision to put the airplane in a hangar anyway and the
additional cost for being in a heated one has generally been not too great.
Now for your more controversial comment!

I try to use the tach - when I see a drop then 3 turns RICH. I think thats

1429
10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

what the book says too.

The only reference about leaning I find in my 1947 Bonanza
handbook is on page 50 under the CRUISE heading.
”For high altiude operation the mixture control should be
used. This will not change the rpm on the tachometer, but a
saving in fuel will result.”
In the the 1956 ”G” model handbook the section has been
expanded somewhat.
”At altitudes above 5,000 feet, you may find leaning the mix-
ture slightly will improve performance, in addition to decreas-
ing fuel consumption, by keeping the fuel/air ratio nearer the
optimum point. Leaning should be done cautiously, with a
vigilant eye on the cylinder head temperature and tachome-
ter, since overleaning can produce detonation, excessive tem-
peratures and possible engine damage.”
I think what they are saying is it is up to you to determine
how best to operate your engine. Yes, we did have lawyers
around even in those ancient days!
Jerry, I would strongly suggest that you read the comments by
George Braly on the ABS HANGAR FLYING page. I am not
very good with computers, but try http://www.bonanza.org/cwchat/
follow the instructions and go to Hangar Flying Topic # 3 –
Engines etc., then go to discussion topic #1 – Which is better
etc., you will find a good discussion on the newer engines. The
principles are the same for the E225 and lean operation has
been around at least since Lindberghs day.
I ran my ”E” series engines that way for years. The recom-
mended overhaul time was 600 hours then and I ran the first
one to 1200 before I finally became afraid and pulled it down
for overhaul. It was in exceptional condition and was over-
hauled without even boring the cylinders!
Were I cruising your airplane at 4500 feet I would probably use
22” MP and 1900 RPM, put the prop in manual and lean for
a 50 RPM drop on the tach or a 3 or 4 mph drop in airspeed.
That should give you 155 to 160 mph on around 9 gph. Still
not bad and very easy on the engine. High altitude is better
though and the airplane really likes 10,000 feet. Incidentally
I think the Beech electric prop with metal blades is the best
one available for cruise performance on your airplane.
The PS5C injection carb generally has excellent distribution

1430
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES

and operates smoothly on the lean side of best power. Ya

gotta lean it!!
Yours,
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19971029 102421 msg02244.tex]

1431
10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Max Power
Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:46:44

Good Evening Thomas,

I believe I commented on the subjects you address in this
message previously.
Maybe I do not understand how you are operating your engine,
but I want emphasize that with the engine and propellor that
you have installed in D-1473, there is NEVER any time that
any RPM above 2300 is approved. Even 2300 is only approved
for one minute during the takeoff maneuver.
ALL other operations MUST be conducted at 2050 RPM or
less.
In addition, full throttle is NOT allowed on that aircraft and
engine combination unless the aircraft is at a density altitude
such that full throttle will not provide more than 26.5 inches
while turning 2300 RPM or 27.5 inches while the engine is
turning 2050 RPM.
The engine and propellor combination that you have is legal
to use the full 225 horsepower if it is mounted in serial num-
ber D-1501 or later, but is restricted to a maximum of 185
horsepower for takeoff and 165 horsepower at all other times
when mounted in a straight 35 unless that airplane has been
rebuilt by Beech and designated as a 35R aircraft.
I am not stating that using more power is or is not safe, but
that it is NOT approved by the certification status of the
airplane.
If you elect to disregard the operating limitations of the air-
craft and an incident occurs, your position would be difficult
to defend.
Fly it legally and enjoy the airplane for what it is!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 4/18/01 4:47:07 AM Central Daylight
Time, [email protected] writes:

My plane is 1948 ”strait” Bonanza S/N D-1497

with Beech 215-207-88 propeller and E-225-8. Un-
fortunately the previous owner and people who

1432
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES

were flying the A/C before confused me in the

way how to operate her.
I have already got lot of help and comments but
some things are still missing.
Engine operation: on the start-run i was having
2650 RPM (till now). Then i was told to reduce
to 2300 RPM for normal climb. In cruise I have
found that 2100 RPM is making less noise than
1950 or 2050 RPM. I keep MP at 19-20” to stay
below 124 KIAS. —-etc.—–
[ARTICLES/20010423 004644 msg08072.tex]

1433
10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Power Off Mixture Position

Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:58:26

In a message dated 11/13/98 8:29:58 AM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

After shutting the engine off, immediately push

the mixture control to full rich.

Good Morning Bob,

That is always good advice for the PS5C Pressure Injection
Carburetor. It takes the stress off the diaphragms and unseats
the needles. Makes it last longer and work better. That must
be balanced against the possibility of a mag switch being left
on or a primary lead wire being broken which could lead to a
hot mag. In that event having the mixture in idle cutoff could
prevent an unintended start if the prop were moved.
Nothing is easy is it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS I really don’t see why it should affect the cold start unless
the needle stuck when the unit cooled down or something. In
any case, I always parked my PS5Cs with the mixture rich or
close to it.
[ARTICLES/19981113 095826 msg06898.tex]

1434
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES

Power Settings/Weight
Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:29:42

In a message dated 3/14/01 9:04:41 AM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

a) I am missing the cruise power settings for the

engine E225-8 on strait 35 Bonanza. b) The Wt
and Bal is strange. The empty weight is 1923
lbs, the Maximum Take-off Weight 2550 lbs (not
much left :-( ) Plane has Baron gear and 20 Gal
Aux-tank) c) One landing mag-flap is corroded,
I have new F33A landing flaps. will they fit or
are there some restrictions. (temporarily BE36
flap is installed)
Thanks in advance. Longer I fly the plane, more
questions will come.
Thomas, 35 Bonanza D-1497
[email protected]

Good Morning Thomas,

Congratulations on your purchase of a fine and good perform-
ing flying machine.
Question a.) The power settings to be used for the E-225-8
engine when installed in the straight 35 airframe are the same
as the ones used for the E-185-1, E185/205-8 or the E-205-11
except the manifold pressure is to be limited to no more than
26.5 inches for one minute at 2300 RPM. After the RPM is
reduced to 2050 RPM, you may use 27.5 inches. Even though
the more powerful engine is installed in the 35 airframe, the
only power that is allowed is the same power as the original
engine.
The maximum RPM allowed is 2300 during takeoff for no
more than one minute. After that, the RPM is to be reduced
to 2050 maximum for all other operations.
You may want to get the Type Certificate Data Sheets that
apply to your airplane. All of the limitations are published
there.
b.) The weight of the airplane was designed to be 1550 empty.
I have only seen one airplane that was that light. It was
unpainted, stripped of all equipment other than lights, a turn

1435
10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

and bank and a simple communications radio. It is rare to

see one with an empty weight below 1700 pounds, but it can
be done. The 2550 is the correct max gross for that airplane.
I had one once upon a time that weighed 1590 empty, but I
had made a massive effort to get it that light.
c.) The new flaps will fit and I THINK they are legal. They
do have to be installed as pairs. The left and right have to be
the made of the same material.
Why don’t you call the ABS office and ask Frank? He will
know for sure.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/20010314 112942 msg05876.tex]

1436
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES

Preheat/Primer
Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:13:03

Good Morning Bruce,

Good explanation of the proper procedure!
In a message dated 11/13/98 10:54:37 AM Central Standard
Time, [email protected] writes:

I also have an electric boost pump, but have been

told and find in practice, that the wobble pump
does a better job for starting purposes. Why
that is I’m not certain.

I have noted the same results and am of the impression (not

scientifically validated) that the wobble pump comes up with
a slightly higher pressure and pumps in more fuel when used
aggressively. That is why operator technique is so important!
If you will note, when you give the pump a good solid stroke,
the engine will stumble more than it will if you turn the pump
on and off for a similar length of time.
One comment on preheat. I have used small propane heaters
(the ones designed for heating a tent that have no open flame)
in the cowl area as well as small electric ones. The important
thing is that the heat be supplied over a long period of time.
Twelve hours if the engine is cold soaked or from some time
not long after the engine is shut down if it is to be parked
for less than twelve hours. It is important that an insulated
blanket of some sort be provided. I have used everything from
a horse blanket to a fitted engine cover. Everything works, but
the custom manufactured cover was the lightest in weight and
did an excellent job.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19981113 131303 msg06915.tex]

1437
10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Straight 35 Max Power

Tue, 8 Sep 1998 20:43:03

Good Evening Scott,

In a message dated 9/8/98 5:41:14 PM Central Daylight Time,
sderrick@yahoo- eng.com writes:

Sorry Straight 35 (1948) E225-8 Pressure carbu-

rator. Hartzell Hyd. Prop.

I suppose you are aware that the E225-8 when mounted in a

straight 35 is normally restricted to 185 horsepower for take
off and 165 METO.
I certainly don’t pretend to say what is safe or practical but
unless you have some sort of STC that I have never heard of,
to be legal you should be using 2300 RPM for takeoff with a
maximum of 26.5 inches of manifold pressure. That power is
OK for one minute and then a reduction to 2050 RPM utilizing
a maximum of 27.5 inches of manifold pressure is required. I
think operating the engine in that manner is actually hard on
the engine but that is what the type sheets call for.
When the engine is installed in an A35 or later, it is good
for 2650 for one minute and 2300 thereafter at full throttle
provided that certain fuel pumps and such are installed and a
propeller is fitted that is approved for that power.
I know that most model 35s are flown at higher power and
I am not aware of any specific problems that have occurred
provided all of the other limits are adhered to.
I keep hoping that someone will show up with an STC autho-
rizing the higher power but thus far when I have examined
the paper work of folks who said they had such an STC, I
was shown a copy of the approval showing that the Hartzell
propeller is approved for 2650 RPM and 29.6 inches when in-
stalled on the E-225. I have yet to see any data supporting
operating the engine at any power higher than 185 for T/O
and 165 METO.
I hope that you do have such an STC and will share that data
with the rest of us.
Happy Skies.
Bob

1438
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES

[ARTICLES/19980908 204303 msg05328.tex]

1439
10.3. OPERATE-ESERIES CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Straight 35 Maximum Power

Sun, 20 Dec 1998 16:24:40

In a message dated 12/20/98 2:37:41 PM Central Standard

Time, [email protected] writes:

If you want to take off at 2,300 rpm, I don’t see

any danger, as the earlier Bonanzas do it all the
time.
True. However that was normally with the elec-
tric 88” prop and lighter airframes. With the
84” one should consider that you lose a LOT of
horsepower by limiting rpm to 2300 and have
more weight to lift off the ground if at gross in
the C D E F G.
Dwaine

Very true. Incidentally I erred in the max MP allowed for the

E225 when installed in a straight 35. It is, as stated, 26.5
for takeoff for one minute at 2300 RPM but 27.5 is allowed
continuously at 2050 RPM.
As stated earlier, there are numerous other restrictions on the
installation listed in the aircraft specs and it would be a good
idea to look them over carefully to see exactly what is legal on
the specific airframe, engine and propeller combination that
is installed on any individual airplane.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19981220 162440 msg07727.tex]

1440
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

10.4 OPERATE-FUEL

1441
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Boost Pump Use

Tue, 26 Jan 1999 19:42:30

Good Evening John Small,

In a message dated 1/26/99 4:37:07 PM Central Standard
Time, [email protected] writes:

So, why would it be on and requiring a check at

launch? If it were on, what problems would it
create?

I don’t know why it might be on, but with the pump on,
the mixture would be much richer than required and possibly
so rich that there would be a reduction in power developed.
It would probably be running terribly rough and might even
foul the plugs. Best that it would be off. However! If your
airplane has the two speed pump, there are times (usually
at high temperatures and/or high altitudes) when low boost
can be helpful to stabilize the fuel flow. If the boost makes
the engine too rich, it can be leaned for smoothness. Just
be sure that the engine is being properly cooled whether it is
being cooled with air (as George described) or with fuel. Stay
out of the ”peak to 100 degrees above peak” operating range,
especially for takeoff.
The fuel injection system used by Continental on the Bonanza
series engine is a very simple device but it does require some
study and thought to fully utilize its benefits.
Happy Skies
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990126 194230 msg01215.tex]

1442
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

Desired Fuel Level

Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:38:46

RE: The ride with tip tanks

Once again this is very subjective , but I think the ride is the
best with tip tanks full.
I usually leave mine full as long as possible. The structural
integrity of the aircrfaft is improved with the tanks full so
if you are going to penetrate turbulence there is a definite
advantage to having the tanks full.
There is one problem. If you have a set using transfer pumps
the pump may fail and the fuel would be unusable. The ones
using direct to engine feed will occasionally end up with a
vapor lock and it is recommended that you ascertain proper
flow before T/O. In any case, I try to transfer or use the fuel
while I still have enough fuel in the mains to get to a safe
landing place.
I will quite commonly fuel the mains to fifty gallons (twenty
five per side is when the fuel is visible on the bottom of the
tank directly below the filler neck of the forty gallon tanks)
and then fill the tips, That will give me the maximum gross
weight of 3550 (my D’Shannon approval needs the weight
above 3400 to be in the tips) and I end up with more allowable
payload.
I like the tip tanks!
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970724 153846 msg01359.tex]

1443
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Fuel Boarding Requirement

Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:30:54

In a message dated 4/21/00 10:15:23 AM Central Daylight

Time, [email protected] writes:

do you have a std amount you always carry then

another number for significant trips depending
on distance and weather, etc?

Good Morning John,

No, I don’t have a standard figure. I suppose thirty-eight
years with United figuring the fuel load based on the operating
conditions so as to provide the optimum efficiency consistent
with safety has instilled the practice so thoroughly into my
being that I find it difficult to do otherwise!
On my airplane, the FAA has stupidly declared that I must
have a minimum of 13 gallons in each tank prior to takeoff.
Before that ridiculous rule was promulgated my position was
that, for a normal takeoff, I wanted at least ten gallons in the
tank on which I was operating the engine.
It was very rare that such an operation was done because I
didn’t always have that great a confidence in the amount of
fuel onboard. It took some rather unusual conditions to make
me comfortable with that amount.
Now that I have a fairly reliable digital fuel flow meter to
aid in determination of the fuel remaining along with fuel
gauges that read consistent with the burns calculated by the
electronic fuel flow, I often depart with just a little more than
the minimum required 26 gallons on board. That is two hours
of fuel at my most common consumption.
Since I have no way of determining visually when there is thir-
teen gallons in each tank, I don’t use that low a fuel for takeoff
unless the flight is one in which I have flown the airplane the
same day or at least recently enough to have confidence that
the minimum required fuel really is on board.
If I thought I had 13 gallons in each tank, but was not sure
and still wanted to be as light as possible for the takeoff, I
would add ten gallons to the tank being used and launch!
If it has been a few days, or if I am fueling the airplane to
just be ready for whatever comes up, I will generally fill it to

1444
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

twenty-five gallons on each side. That amount can be deter-

mined by looking in the tank. When fuel is visible directly
below the fill port, it contains twenty-five gallons. Fill to the
bottom of the tab and we have thirty and up to the slot in
the tab, thirty-five.
If I have need for a maximum payload trip, I will try to arrange
to be at the departure point with thirteen gallons in each
main and twenty-five gallons in the tips, twelve and a half in
each. That configuration allows me the greatest amount of
payload legally possible along with fuel enough for close to
five-hundred miles with almost an hour of reserve fuel. One
thousand and eight pounds in the cabin and three hundred and
six pounds of fuel. If I utilize the one hundred pound increase
in gross which BDS has approved for the 550 installation, the
figures change a little. The fuel required in the tips reduces
by one hundred pounds and the cabin load goes up to 1108
with a commensurate reduction in range. I don’t generally
use that configuration as I am not all that confident of my
interpretation of the application of the one hundred pound
increase combined with the tip tank approval. I have received
different opinions from different folks and I don’t want to press
the issue at this time.
It is very difficult to load a thousand pounds or more in the
cabin on my airplane and still be within the CG.
For what it’s worth, that’s the way I like to do it.
The main thing is to do that with which you are comfortable.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000421 123054 msg06858.tex]

1445
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Fuel Boarding Requirements

Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:38:24

In a message dated 4/21/00 12:08:22 PM Central Daylight

Time, [email protected] writes:

I’m pretty sure that if you have 13 gallons in

the tank being used for takeoff, you can have
whatever you want in the others.

Good Afternoon Eric,

The required fuel must be in each main. That is what is so
ridiculous. If it were only in the tank that was being used, it
would make sense.
The auxiliary tanks and the tip tanks have no such restriction.
When Beech built your airplane, the unusable fuel was listed
as one half gallon per tank. There was no requirement for a
minimum fuel for takeoff. After some unthinking pilots made
turning type takeoffs with low fuel quantities without con-
sidering which tank they were feeding from, the FAA issued
AD 72-11-02 which, among other things, required that yellow
marks be placed on the fuel gauges and a placard be placed
near the fuel selector delineating the appropriate minimum
fuel for takeoff. If you have the forty gallon tanks, the plac-
ard should tell you to have at least 13 gallons in each main
tank for takeoff. For those airplanes with the twenty gallon
tanks installed, I believe the required amount is seven gallons
in each tank.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000421 133824 msg06866.tex]

1446
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

Fuel Boarding Requirements

Mon, 24 Apr 2000 09:19:56

In a message dated 4/24/00 7:27:00 AM Central Daylight

Time, [email protected] writes:

Does anyone know the rationale for the FAA rule

that you must have at least 13 gallons in each
tank for takeoff?

Good Morning Alan,

The rational for the thirteen gallons is that if one is making a
fast turning style of takeoff while feeding the engine from the
tank on the outside of the turn, there is less chance of the fuel
outlet being unported with thirteen gallons than with say, five
gallons. The rational for needing that amount of fuel in both
tanks rather than in just the one used for takeoff is that the
same folks within the FAA who feel that we aviators are so
stupid as to make those turning style of takeoffs are also too
stupid to know which tank has fuel in it.
I know that is a flippant answer and for that I apologize, but
I really feel the answer is that simple and that stupid.
There are many fine conscientious folks within the FAA. Most
of them are aviation enthusiasts who work very hard to make
aviation practical and safe, but the FAA suffers from the same
difficulties as most professional groups. We tend to not criti-
cize our colleagues in public. The FAA folks are very protec-
tive of their own.
Once one of the idiots in the group starts pushing for some-
thing stupid, few of the others will stand in his/her way unless
the results of that effort are horrendous. Something like the
requirement for fuel in each main tank is rather innocuous, It
doesn’t interfere with the operation of the airplane very often,
so the rule is shoved through with little opposition.
Sorry for the tirade, but that is the way I saw it when the AD
was issued!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/20000424 091956 msg06965.tex]

1447
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Fuel Flow with Low power and Full Flaps

Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:44:03

Good Afternoon All,

I just went out and tried a few configurations and speeds to
prepare for some flight testing of the full flaps and idle or low
power configuration.
At around 2900 pounds, gear down, full flaps and sufficient
power to maintain a stabilized 80 knots at 500 fpm descent,
the aircraft attitude was very close to level. I am sure that
there would be no unporting problem with that configuration.
With the throttle closed, full flaps and gear down the rate of
descent at 80 knots was around 1700 FPM. When I slowed to
70 knots, the descent slowed to 1200 FPM.
At 80 knots the nose was about 7 or 8 degrees below the
horizon while at 70 it was less than 5 degrees below. I don’t
think the tank would unport with low fuel at the 5 degree
down attitude but it might be close at 7 or 8 degrees.
It appears that if the airplane is flown at a speed appropriate
for the flaps that are set, there is very little possibility of the
tank unporting until all of the fuel is gone. If the speed is
substantially higher as one is diving for the runway I guess it
might happen, but if you are diving for the runway at high
speed do you really care if the tank unports?
In any case I will try to make a flight test to determine the
accuracy of that theory. Like the man said: One experiment
is worth a thousand theories!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990204 164403 msg01937.tex]

1448
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

Fuel Management
Mon, 5 Jul 1999 09:39:52

In a message dated 7/4/99 11:02:28 PM Central Daylight

Time, [email protected] writes:

If your Primary Gauges are 1/4 tank or less put

it on the ground ASAP. If the are inaccurate fix
them.

Good Morning Lance N. Terrill,

We have thoroughly beaten this discussion around cyberspace
within the last few months but I can’t resist some comment.
I cannot disagree with the comment concerning repairing the
aircraft’s equipment if it is not working to the limits required
for certification. However it is my understanding that the
fuel gauges only need to be accurate when they are indicating
empty! I haven’t reviewed the wording in the FARs and maybe
someone else would like to take the time to do so.
As to the statement ”If your Primary Gauges are 1/4 tank or
less put it on the ground ASAP.” I do have some reservation.
This implies that one would never want to fly without at least
two adequate sources of fuel available for their airplane. Do I
read this right? Do you really feel that one should not fly an
airplane equipped with only one source of fuel?
I personally prefer to have all of my fuel in one tank when I
am flying a flight segment that brings me to my destination
with the minimum fuel with which I have planned to arrive. I
run all of my other tanks dry to assure that I know as closely
as practical the flight duration that is remaining.
The desired flight duration remaining at landing is a func-
tion of all of the factors affecting the flight among which are
the weather at my destination, the reliability of my aircraft
fuel system, the available alternate landing sites near my des-
tination and ’most everything else that has an effect on the
individual flight.
If one were to presume that you mean you are flying at straight
model 35 equipped with an E-225 which you like to operate
at 75 percent power, 1/4 tank equates to 23 minutes of fuel in
each tank or a total of 46 for the pair together (12.6 GPH at
75%, 1/4 of a twenty gallon tank). While I might on occasion

1449
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

plan to arrive in very good conditions with only 46 minutes

of fuel on board, I would prefer that it all be in one tank.
If you are one of those who believe the lawyer inspired restric-
tion concerning the possibility that there might be only 17
gallons usable in those early tanks rather than the designed
usable fuel, 1/4 tank would mean that you are down to 9.5
minutes of fuel per tank. I think that would be considered a
little skinny even by the Top Gun Jet Jockeys!
As to landing my airplane with 1/4 tank indicated in each
”Primary Gauge” equipped tank ASAP, that would mean I
would be looking for a place to get on the ground when I still
had one hour and forty minutes of fuel on board at my normal
cruising power. Even if I only consider the one tank as being
available, that still means I would be landing with more fuel
in each tank than the FAA considers pertinent for planning
purposes on an IFR flight!
My old J-3 Cub held twelve gallons of fuel, at 4.5 GPH, 1/4
tank would be 40 minutes of fuel available. Under that con-
dition I would likely be looking for a landing site ASAP.
One of the airplanes I flew for a living had four hours of fuel
on board when the ”Primary Gauges” showed 1/4 tank.
I think we need to make our decisions based on a LOT more
information than just the reading of 1/4 tank on the Primary
Gauges.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990705 093952 msg05709.tex]

1450
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

Fuel Reserve
Wed, 3 Feb 1999 01:47:42

Good Morning Ralph,

In a message dated 2/3/99 12:23:25 AM Central Standard
Time, [email protected] writes:

He made the comment that the objective is to

not land with 45 minutes of fuel spread out in 6
tanks.

How true!
If I am down to 10 gallons or less for landing, I definitely want
it all in one tank and I will try to plan to have it in a tank
appropriate for the landing conditions that I think will exist.
If there is no crosswind to consider, I like to have my last fuel
in the left tank. Probably not much difference between the
two though the routing from the right tank is slightly longer
than the path from the left.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990203 014742 msg01789.tex]

1451
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Fuel Tank Unporting

Sat, 29 Apr 2000 09:58:48

In a message dated 4/29/00 8:31:15 AM Central Daylight

Time, [email protected] writes:

Well, I (a new V35 owner of 1 month) avoid turn-

ing takeoffs. However, this makes me wonder if
it is possible to unport the fuel after departure,
while turning crosswind. Can this happen?
Alan

Good Morning Alan,

As long as you are in coordinated positive G flight, that is,
with the ball in the middle, you can do loops, Barrel rolls and
Cuban eights and the tank will still feed. The combination
of centrifugal force and gravity work to our advantage. The
only time you have to worry about unporting the tank is when
your flight is slipping, skidding or in a very rare, extremely
nose low, yet stable, attitude.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000429 095848 msg07295.tex]

1452
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

Fuel Unporting
Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:37:48

Good Afternoon Paul Whitesell,

In a message dated 2/2/99 11:00:00 AM Central Standard
Time, [email protected] writes:

I agree with Bob but would like to add one note

to his comments. The fuel pickup is in the rear
corner of the tank. When the flaps are lowered it
produces a marked pitch down attitude. When
the tank is below the usable fuel limit and the
aircraft is configured for landing the fuel can run
forward and the tank may unport. Higher ap-
proaches and slips can make the situation worse.

Good point Paul, I haven’t done any flight tests in that con-
figuration. The next time I want to run a tank dry I will give
it a try!
I THINK that on a normal 3 degree glide slope with full flaps
and power to allow stabilized flight around eighty knots, the
tank would not unport till it was down to the 1/2 gallon point
or less. If I were ever down to less than 3 gallons and I had a
choice, I would probably go for a full power off approach.
My ”off the top” feeling is that even with full flaps, the fuel
port will not uncover unless the speed is well above the ap-
propriate speed for the flaps that are used and the power is
at idle or nearly so. I will probably try it at best L/D speed
for full flaps plus maybe ten knots and idle power.
My major question is: How am I going to get in that config-
uration with reasonable knowledge that I have only a pint or
two of fuel on board when I establish the desired configura-
tion? The easiest way would be to run the tank dry in normal
flight and then, after landing, add a pint of fuel to the tank,
takeoff, setup the test and switch to the tank to be checked.
Let’s say I’m burning 3 GPH at idle, it would take two minutes
and thirty seconds to burn one pint of fuel. If the descent were
around 800 feet per minute that would mean a loss of 2000 feet
while burning the pint. At 1200 fpm descent, the loss would
be 3000 feet. I guess I will have to make some preliminary
tests to establish the best setup. But the biggest problem is:
Since the rules were changed to require that stupid minimum
fuel in BOTH tanks, I would be illegal if I took off with only

1453
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

a pint in the tank to be tested!

Nothing is easy is it?
And a little more—————-
From John Small:

I’m been working up the courage to do this at

altitude so I’d know for sure about my tanks.
Are there precautions to be taken?

I generally run my tanks dry at relatively low power, some-

where around 20 inches and 2000 RPM. I do this so that if
I don’t catch it when the fuel pressure flickers, I will be less
likely to get an overspeed on the restart. It is easier to see
the fuel pressure flicker at higher powers and that is when I
normally switch, when the fuel pressure flickers. There was a
major and prolonged discussion on the forum about running
tanks dry a few months ago.
I did a fair amount of testing some forty years ago associated
with a planned long range flight (that never came off), and
found that the one half gallon figure was very conservative.
From a mechanic who’s changed several Bonanza tanks (the
one I spoke about in another message today), he’s found that
the 40 gal/37 useable tanks ALWAYS have 40 gal useable.
So I’m really starting to wonder where that 37 useable came
from. Is it for real or a legalism?
I have NEVER put less fuel in the tank than the full amount that the tank
was built to hold other than in the case of the unbuttoned tank to which I
referred this morning.
That is 20 gallons for the early airplanes, 25 for those few that were so
equipped, 10 per aux when they are installed and 40 for the long tanks.
The same results have been obtained with both Safe Flight Extender/BDS
and Brittain/Osborne tip tanks
I don’t remember when the 3 gallon unusable figure was added, but I seem
to remember that the S35s still listed just 1/2 gal as unusable when they
were new. I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.
I think it is strictly a ”lawyer” input IF the airplane is properly flown and
consideration of the potential for unporting the intake is considered by the
pilot.
I have the forty gallon mains and 15 gallon BDS tips. I count on the full
110 gallons for all of my flight planning and if conditions are good at my

1454
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

destination with plenty of alternate landing sites, I will plan for an arrival
with as little as seven gallons reserve.
That is 45 minutes of fuel at economy cruise at the weight consistent with
that amount of fuel on board. The fuel would all be in my left main tank
unless I knew that I was going to encounter a strong left crosswind for
landing and then I would have it all in the right main.
Works for me!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990202 143748 msg01731.tex]

1455
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Full Boarding Requirement

Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:34:31

In a message dated 4/21/00 10:16:53 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Anyway, topping off all tanks (if load allows) at the start of the
mission often allows me to comfortably complete the mission
(here to there to there and back to here again) without having
to spend time or money refueling at some other airport whose
avgas might be 40c more expensive than the gas at my home
base.

Good Morning Eric,

That is the point, you have filled your tanks to provide benefit that you
perceive, not just because the tanks are there.
All of the points you use for the amount of fuel you carry are considerations
that would lead me to carry full fuel as well. But there are many other
trips where payload is high and the required range is short. Sometimes the
available takeoff conditions do not favor a maximum gross takeoff. All are
conditions that should be considered in determining the amount of fuel to
be boarded.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000421 113431 msg06846.tex]

1456
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

High Fuel Flow

Thu, 28 May 1998 00:00:32

Good Evening Robert Condon,

In a message dated 98-05-27 18:41:35 EDT, you write:

However, on my first long trip last week I was very surprised

that it burned 14.5 gph!

I just had an additional thought concerning your high fuel consumption.

Does your airplane have an electric backup fuel pump? I have known people
that had an unusually high burn and when questioned, I found they were in
the habit of turning on the auxiliary electric pump for takeoff anfd landing
and operating it at other times as a backup. The fuel consumption will
increase drastically while the fuel pump is turned on. It will even make the
engine run rough!
The auxiliary fuel pump on an airplane with an injection carburetor is only
to be used for times when the engine pump is not supplying adequate fuel.
It should not be used routinely as it is on a Piper equipped with a float
carburetor.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980528 000032 msg02874.tex]

1457
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Maximizing Range and Payload

Tue, 26 Dec 2000 11:52:35

In a message dated 12/26/00 9:27:34 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Ken
I agree completely. I live in NJ, and IFR departures are a
busy affair. I don’t need the distraction of lean climbs to save
a gallon of fuel. I can’t figure why anyone else would either,
but different strokes for different folks.
Mike McNamara

Good Morning Gentlemen,

I think the point that needs to be addressed concerns how important ad-
ditional range or payload is to the operation you are conducting.
John has made the flight tests which determined that he can save seven
gallons by using the lean climb program.
That equates to at least thirty minutes more fuel at the destination or an
increase in payload of almost forty-two pounds on a trip when maximum
payload is paramount.
When I was gainfully employed, we didn’t make a major effort to maximize
payload or minimize fuel for a trip from O’Hare to Idlewild. Maybe we
should have, for maximum income, but the trip could be operated easily
with any payload that the airframe could accommodate and we could carry
enough fuel with maximum allowable payload that we could probably have
named Miami as an alternate if we wanted to.
However, when we were loading up for a nonstop from O’Hare to Seoul,
Korea, every ounce of payload and every minute of reserve fuel made a
difference.
There is a cross over point in every airframe from a J-3 Cub to a 747 where
such a calculation is just as important as it is in a money making 747.
If you have the need for maximizing payload, range or both, it can be very
important.
The rest of the time, it is probably just an interesting exercise, but isn’t it
nice to be familiar with the operational procedures required to gain those
maximums for those rare occasions when they may be needed?
I enjoy gaining the knowledge and have occasionally used the maximization
techniques to good advantage.

1458
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20001226 115235 msg18387.tex]

1459
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Reserve Fuel
Thu, 21 May 1998 09:19:14

Good Morning John Ornellas,

In a message dated 98-05-21 07:37:04 EDT, you write:

Don’t forget about fuel reserve requirements for all flight!

I still have a hard time understanding what you are referring to by this
statement.
For flight planning purposes, the FAA requires that you have planned for
certain minimum amounts of fuel to be added to the burnout fuel for your
flight based on the current forecasts and a reasonable analysis thereof. It
is expected that you will monitor the flight and your fuel usage and take
reasonable actions if conditions are worse than forecast.
What you do after that is a function of your own personal minimums.
There is no requirement that any certain amount of fuel be on board the
aircraft for landing. There is certainly no requirement that every tank on
board have fuel in it!
Where fuel is to be located in the aircraft and the sequence for using it is
what we are discussing on this thread.
Some of us prefer that our minimum fuel be in one tank and use various
procedures to assure that the desired amount is there. There are others
who want a certain defined amount of fuel to be in another tank so that
it might be switched to in the event that the other tank ceases to feed. In
either case, if you do not have a rather precise knowledge of the amount of
fuel available and a reasonable willingness to use that fuel, it is of no use
to you!
I would not condemn anyone who wants to land with five or ten or more
gallons in each tank but I certainly wouldn’t recommend it and I will argue
that it definitely is not required by the FARs.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980521 091914 msg02739.tex]

1460
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

Running Tank Dry

Thu, 4 Sep 1997 21:53:03

Ron Davis and Randy Bailey,

I never did receive the message which generated Randys reply but I would
like to comment on the procedure for restarting an engine after running a
tank dry.
First off, the proper procedure to be used is dependent on several factors
among them being the type of fuel system, the type of propeller, the power
at which the engine is being operated and of course the altitude (determines
how much time is available for restart). I’m sure many of us could think
of other things too.
Obviously if one is close to the ground when a tank is run dry, it is an
emergency and rapid action must be taken even if it is detrimental to the
life of the engine.
Assuming that one is at altitude and is intentionally running a tank dry,
(NOT a recommended procedure in most cases) it is preferable that the
engine be at a lower power setting, say 50 or 60 per cent power. The RPM
should be in the lower operating range and if you have the electric propeller,
it should be in the manual not the automatic position.
All of this is to avoid the potential for an overspeed on engine restart. That
could be very damaging to the engine. It is nice to be at a lower power
setting so that the possibility of shock cooling (if there is such a thing) is
lessened.
Unless the flight is in a critical phase there is really no hurry to get the
engine going again. and it is worth the time to do it right. It wouldn’t be
a bad idea to reduce the throttle a bit if the flight is high enough that it
is being flown at full throttle. The next order of business is to re-establish
fuel flow. If the airplane is equipped with the hand wobble pump, that is
the nicest way to do it. NO big hurry just wobble until the fuel pressure
is normal and then the engine will refire and start very nicely. If you were
leaned on the lean side of best power or even close to peak it would be
a good idea to richen it a bit. Once the engine is firing smoothly normal
power can be established.
I once helped pick up a Bonanza that was put down in a soft corn field
after a tank was inadvertantly run dry at low altitude. The pilot realized
what he had done and switched tanks, hit the boost pump, richened the
mixture and shoved the prop in. I’m not sure if he opened the throttle
or not but in any case he flooded the engine out and it never did restart!
(Opening the throttle might have given it enough air to get going)

1461
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

This airplane was a nice shiny V35 with about fifty hours on it and it was
very badly damaged. The pilot elected to land gear up due to the muddy
condition of the local fields (Probably a good decision).
Unfortunately, his airplane was equipped with the then new ”Magic Hand”
and the gear extended. In the rush of things this was not noted by the pilot
and the gear dug into the mud and ripped the devil out of the airplane.
Fortunately no damage to the pilot.
The fuel injected engines are the easiest to flood out but it can also be done
in certain conditions to the PS5C airplanes with the electric boost pump.
Back in the days of yore when the DC-4s and 6s were king it was common
(I won’t say desirable but still common) to run fuel tanks dry. We would
try to watch the fuel pressure and you could usually see the fuel pressure
dropping in time to switch the tanks and catch it before the engine quit.
Company policy said that if the power was interrupted to close the throttle
and re-establish fuel pressure before trying to get the engine going again.
Those engines were more sensitive to overspeed than our little engines but
I still think the same theory applies.
Some years before the Jets arrived the airplanes were getting powerful
enough to carry more fuel and our fuel gauges got better and company pol-
icy was changed to one of not running tanks dry intentionally. Probably a
very good policy, unfortunately though after that time there was no train-
ing on how to restart the engine properly after an inadvertant interruption
of power.
To sum up, I am not recommending that people run their tanks dry inten-
tionally but do feel that proper procedures should be taught to restart in
the most desirable manner for the individual airplane and situation.
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970904 215303 msg01651.tex]

1462
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

Running Tank Dry

Fri, 5 Sep 1997 19:06:53

Hi Ron,
Your original message just showed up on my set. Boy! Some of these
messages are really out of sequence.
The infornation that has been on the board is all pretty good.
Just remember that it was running when you lost the fuel. All you have to
do is replace it!
Try not to flood the engine. It is very easy to do on the fuel injected models
but if your ”E’” still has the PS5C it starts real easy with just the hand
pump and quite often with out anything but patience. As I said earlier if
you have it way on the lean side of peak you might want to richen it a bit,
but not much! If you still have the electric prop, overspeed is not much
of a problem. Especially if you are running in manual without the ”APC”
unit.
I got in the habit of always running my tanks dry when I was flying straight
35s and especially when I had airplanes with the small 10 gal wing aux
tanks. If you don’t run them dry you end up with a little bit (maybe a
couple of gallons) in each tank and pretty soon it adds up to an hour or so
worth of fuel. It is a problem.
I always told my wife to watch the fuel pressure gauge when my fuel was
down to an estimated five or ten minutes supply in the tank on which I
was operating.
I would usually get about three yelps – BOB! – BOB! – BOB! - and by
then I would have the tank switched and the engine never missed a beat.
It sure helps to have a copilot who doesn’t like to have the engine quit!
Modern thinking is to not run the tanks dry. If you have a bunch of small
tanks you might want to find a knowledgable person who has a LOT of
experience in running tanks dry and get him or her to check you out on
the procedure. Be careful, it is getting to be (and probably deservedly so)
a lost art.
Gotta run, if you have specific questions feel free to contact me directly.
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970905 190653 msg01661.tex]

1463
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Running Tank Dry

Tue, 12 May 1998 00:23:58

Good Evening Dr. Larry Grimm

In a message dated 98-05-11 23:21:28 EDT, you write:

I could not find anything in the POH and I am wondering if the

fuel pump needs to be turned on just before tank switching?

No, definitely not necessary, in fact it would be detrimental to do so. Turn-

ing on the fuel pump will enrichen the mixture as it raises the fuel pressure.
If something does cause an interruption in fuel flow or pressure, activation
of the pump would be proper for the length of time necessary to establish
normal fuel pressure.
While current thought is that fuel tanks should not be run dry, it does
happen on occasion and I would suggest that you find a knowledgeable
Bonanza instructor to show the proper technique for restoring normal op-
eration following such an occasion.
The fuel system on the 36 is a very reliable one and momentary fuel absence
is not difficult to handle.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980512 002358 msg02410.tex]

1464
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

Running Tank Dry

Mon, 18 May 1998 11:14:48

Good Morning All,

Been out of town for a few days and just checked back in this morning!
I absolutely have to put my two bits in on this controversy. I want everyone
to know that I am squarely on both sides of the fence on this one.
If you don’t want to run your tanks dry, then by all means don’t do it. A
firm management and warning system should be devised so that you will
never accidentally do so and fuel management and flight planning proce-
dures should allow for carrying that extra fuel around that you absolutely
never will attempt to use.
The turbine engines do not take kindly to fuel outages and restarts so
most are designed with warning devices, fuel management procedures or
automatic switching to see that it does not happen. As a consequence,
training and recommendations for the last twenty or thirty years has moved
away from teaching proper procedures for running a tank dry.
In the days of yore it was generally accepted that having a number of fuel
tanks was a good thing as they could be run dry in sequence to evaluate
fuel burn and enable the aviator to properly plan his arrival fuel for the
conditions encountered. Modern fuel flow devices and improved fuel gauges
have made such operation less of a necessity. There was also the thought
that multiple fuel cells were a safety factor in the event of fuel leaks devel-
oping. Such leaks were more common fifty or sixty years ago than they are
now.
Bill Hale mentioned the advantage of leaving a little fuel in one tank just
in case the one you are relying on ceases to supply fuel and I don’t think
any of us will argue that having multiple redundancys is often desirable
whether it be fuel sources or otherwise.
The simplest fuel system is still one tank. Also back in the days of yore,
many airplanes had a standpipe in the one and only tank so that fuel
could be taken from the top of that standpipe until the fuel level fell to
that point. At that time the system would be switched to a drain on the
bottom of the tank and a known quantity of fuel would be available to
execute a (hopefully) safe landing. The standpipe position of the fuel valve
was generally called ”MAIN” and the bottom of the tank position was
known as ”RESERVE”. The aircraft was usually placarded to takeoff and
land on reserve only. Not a bad system and it was also used on the early
Volkswagen to avoid the cost of a fuel indicating device.
If you fall onto the ”I absolutely will never never let a tank run dry” side

1465
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

of the fence and still want tip tanks I would suggest that you utilize the
transfer system as provided by most versions of the Safe Flight Extenders
as produced by BDS ever since he acquired the STC and by Osborne for
the last several years.
I have a close acquaintance who wanted to figure out a way to run his small
ten gallon wing tanks dry without having to encounter a fuel flow interrup-
tion. We designed a method of using some of Al Peterson’s components to
provide the transfer of fuel from those aux tanks through the same system
as used for the tips. I called BDS to see if they had any comments and was
told that Allen had thought of the same thing several years ago but decided
that the market would be too small to warrant going to the trouble to get
it approved. They suggested we try to install it on a local approval. The
tip tanks that the owner was going to install have not yet been acquired,
but if they ever are, we will at least apply for approval for the transfer
system for the aux tanks.
If you get the system down to where there are only two tanks available to
run dry, carrying a small amount of fuel that you don’t ever intend to use
is not too great a penalty.
I have seen at least one airplane that had the ten gallon aux tanks in each
wing, a twenty gallon aux tank in the baggage and wing tip tanks. When
you include the mains, that adds up to seven separate fuel cells. If the
owner used the figure of never going below five gallons in any tank, which
has been suggested by some, then he would be carrying 35 gallons or 210
pounds of extra weight around at all times.
All of those except the mains would be easy to transfer using either the
BDS or the Osborne system which would make the airplane effectively a
two tanker as far as having to retain fuel to avoid fuel flow interruption.
Let us say, though, that you do intend to run the tanks dry (as do I),
whether you want to learn to do it safely in case of accidental mismanage-
ment or intentionally for precise fuel use control and evaluation.
I would suggest that you try to plan to run the tank dry while at a relatively
low power.
With the PS5C equipped engines and an electric prop, I would place the
propeller control in manual and assign someone to constant monitoring of
the RPM and or fuel pressure. You will find there is a noticeable drop in
both a sufficient time before the engine quits to give you plenty of time
to switch tanks. A gentle stroke on the wobble pump to assure stable fuel
pressure will help. I like to use the hand pump in lieu of the electric even if
one is installed. It seems to work much smoother and avoids any excessive
richening of the mixture.
The fuel injected engines don’t react quite as friendly as do the PS5C ones

1466
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

but there is still a major warning from the fuel pressure gauge. I have a
warning device that monitors the fuel pressure for me on my V35B and
when she says: Bob, BOB, BOB! I switch tanks!
By the time the third ”Bob” is out, I have switched tanks and there is
never a burble of any kind.
If the tank does run dry and the engine does cease providing thrust, there
is no chance of it stopping turning. I have tried many times to stop the
engine from windmilling using such time honored methods as putting the
prop in maximum high pitch (low RPM) bringing the aircraft to stall and
slipping drastically. It always keeps on turning. I think you would have to
cut off the oil supply and wait a considerable time for it to seize to get it
to stop.
If the tank is run dry, chances are that just switching tanks and waiting a
few seconds will bring it back to life with little trepidation.
I am familiar with one case in which an individual was flying at about 400
feet above the ground slipping a V35A steeply toward the tank on which
he was operating. The tank outlet unported and the engine quit. In an
effort to reestablish power as rapidly as possible, the pilot switched tanks,
then shoved in the throttle, prop and mixture controls. The engine flooded
out and did not restart in the time remaining before ground contact. I do
believe he also closed the throttle before ground contact but am not sure
of that. It was spring and the ground was soft so the pilot elected to land
gear up. Since the airplane was equipped with the ”Magic Hand” system,
the gear came out anyway. Damage was severe. It was questionable as to
whether it should have been rebuilt but since it was almost new, it was.
I have never known of any one having any trouble restarting if they just
switch tanks and wait.
I personally like to tinker with things so I usually tickle the fuel pump while
watching the fuel pressure gauge till fuel flow is reestablished and if I am
at high RPM and MP I will throttle back a bit and bring down the RPM
somewhat before switching tanks. If I were fifty feet in the air on takeoff
and it happened, I would probably switch tanks if I recognized what was
happening. I feel that it would restart with no problem but I haven’t tried
it!
Incidentally, I normally try to run each main tank dry at least once a year
just to check that full fuel capacity is still available to me in case I am
planning on it. I have never put less than the rated capacity in a tank that
I have run dry. If the airplane is flown in coordinated flight and extreme
nose low attitudes are avoided, there is no unusable fuel in any Bonanza
main tank unless it has unsnapped and folds have occurred which could
trap fuel. I have never had it happen on any of my Bonanzas but have

1467
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

heard of it occurring and that is one reason I check mine at least once a
year.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980518 111448 msg02637.tex]

1468
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

Running Tank Dry

Mon, 18 May 1998 11:29:49

Good Morning Again,

In a message dated 98-05-18 11:14:48 EDT, I wrote:

If the tank does run dry and the engine does cease providing
thrust, there is no chance of it stopping turning. I have tried
many times to stop the engine from windmilling using such
time honored methods as putting the prop in maximum high
pitch (low RPM) bringing the aircraft to stall and slipping
drastically. It always keeps on turning. I think you would
have to cut off the oil supply and wait a considerable time for
it to seize to get it to stop.

I have managed to stop the old wood blade electric Beech props on occasion
but never the metal bladed ones. So if you really want to see the engine
and prop not turning on your wood prop airplane, cut the mixture, take
full flaps, zoom it up into a high angle in relation to the horizon and right
at the stall, kick it into a strong slip. It may stop! I don’t know why anyone
would want to do that anymore but that did work many years ago when
we were trying to get some drag performance figures on an early Bonanza.
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980518 112949 msg02638.tex]

1469
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Running Tank Dry

Mon, 18 May 1998 12:37:20

Good Morning WHITESELL, PAUL,

In a message dated 98-05-18 10:45:19 EDT, you write:

I think Lucky’s point was that a vane pump that has been run
dry may have trouble generating 1.5 psi before it is primed.
This would only be a problem if the fuel level in the tank that
was switched to was very low because the boost pump would
have to pull fuel up into the pump. I agree that a primed
boost pump will generate plenty of pressure.

Very interesting! I have never heard of that problem. I will say that I
generally have quite a bit of fuel in the tank I am intending to switch to
if I am intentionally running a tank dry. Generally at least ten or fifteen
gallons on the later airplanes and five to ten on the early small tanked
ones. I would think that even four or five gallons on either size tank should
provide plenty of head to the hand wobble pump or the electric boost pump
if installed. At least a couple of inches. Obviously if one can plan to switch
the tanks at a point where a safe landing could be executed without power,
that is always a good idea.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
P.S. I NEVER buy lottery tickets!
[ARTICLES/19980518 123720 msg02640.tex]

1470
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

Running Tank Dry

Mon, 18 May 1998 23:41:36

Good Evening John Ornellas,

In a message dated 98-05-18 20:01:57 EDT, you write:

I don’t mean to quote the reg’s and I’m not a ”regs” junky
however there is something in them that says a certain amount
of reserves must be maintained for VFR and IFR flight. I
understand that to mean all flight whether it’s circling the
patch or going somewhere.

I don’t see how that would have any effect on the legality of running a tank
dry.
The reserve fuel requirements are for planning purposes, not required for
operational use if conditions change from those of a reasonable forecast.
While most of us have personal minimums that we apply to our flight
operations, the FAA does not have very stringent requirements and I am
certain that fuel located anywhere in the airplane would be considered
adequate to meet the required fuel reserves regardless of whether it is all
in one tank or split up among many.
I have a preference for having my fuel in one tank when I am approaching
my personal minimum fuel state.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980518 234136 msg02671.tex]

1471
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Running Tank Dry

Mon, 25 May 1998 20:11:10

Good Evening Carmine Pecoraro,

In a message dated 98-05-25 19:52:00 EDT, you write:

Has anybody considered that running tanks dry could intro-

duce water or dirt into the fuel system from the bottem of the
tank? This could be the reason some people have experienced
rough running engines after running tanks dry!

I really don’t see how that could happen. The fuel is coming from the same
outlet all of the time. It does not have a floating pickup. The low point in
the tank is supposed to be the point at which the sump drain is located.
Any water or crud should be eliminated by conscientious use of the fuel
drains.
I have been running tanks dry for over fifty years and so far so good!
I tend to agree with John Deakin, I like to know how much fuel is left,
where it is and have it all in one tank for that last bit of reserve.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980525 201110 msg02818.tex]

1472
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

Running Tank Dry

Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:30:55

Good Morning Dwaine,

In a message dated 9/16/98 12:08:12 AM Central Daylight Time, classicbo-
[email protected] writes:

I have never - ever - experienced the above in any airplane

I have flown in over 30 years - but then again I have never
flown an M35. My D35, with Osbornes (Brittian/Beech), will
lose pressure once (in level flight) and before you can switch
tanks (1 or 2 seconds) the engine is winding down. Same is
true with the mains. I wonder if anyone else has had your
experience?

I find that the situation described by Joe Salyer is prevalent in all of the
airplanes I have flown which use the Continental mechanical type of fuel
injection. i.e. all IO470, IO520 and IO550 engines. I imagine it would
be the same on IO360s but have not tried it. There is sufficient time to
switch tanks, generally with no loss of power whatsoever. This has been
true regardless of which tank the engine is being fed from including direct
feed from the early style Brittain tanks.
I assign my wife the duty of watching the fuel pressure gauge. When it
starts to wiggle and drop, she says: Bob, BOB, BOB! By the third very
loud BOB, I have the tank switched and all is well. I have never actually
timed it, but I would say there is a least a four or five second delay from
the time the needle starts to wiggle and drop till the engine starts to lose
power.
A couple of weeks ago I purposely let one run dry while I watched the
needle to see just how it reacted if I did not switch. It dropped a couple
of pounds and wiggled for a couple of seconds and then steadily dropped
on down to zero. The power fell off slowly with the dropping fuel pressure.
It took a few seconds, maybe eight or ten to reestablish fuel pressure and
normal operation of the engine.
I used to run my PS5C fed engines dry also but the engine quit more often
than it does with the current crop of fuel injected units.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980916 013055 msg05437.tex]

1473
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Running Tank Dry

Wed, 16 Sep 1998 15:07:14

Good Afternoon Dwaine,

In a message dated 9/16/98 1:07:16 PM Central Daylight Time, classicbo-
[email protected] writes:

I agree AND the difference between 1 to 2 seconds and 4 to

5 seconds is not much when it comes to the engine quiting. I
hate that.

I find that as long as I am expecting the tank to run dry, have my power
adjusted accordingly and have Thelma Jean along to watch the fuel pres-
sure, I rarely get even the slightest burble. That was not true with the E
series engines. I often had the engine stumble a little even when T.J. and I
were expecting it to quit. I have never had one fail to restart under those
conditions and do try to run my tanks dry as often as possible just to check
that their full capacity is still available. No folded tanks or anything.
I did tend to run my E series engines quite a way on the lean side of best
power. My usual leaning procedure was to lean for a ten mph drop in
airspeed.
Don’t know if that made a difference or not!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19980916 150714 msg05460.tex]

1474
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

Running Tank Dry

Mon, 17 Apr 2000 02:04:01

In a message dated 4/17/00 12:13:15 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

The first time it quit in air I hit the boost pump just after I
switched tanks. The engine coughed and popped a few times
before catching and I’m assuming it was too much fuel.

Good Evening Kevin,

If your engine coughed and popped, it was most likely still too lean. A rich
engine will roll and lope.
Learning to listen to and recognize the difference in sound between a rich
and a lean engine is a helpful diagnostic tool for normal starts as well as
inflight restarts.
The fuel system which you have for your tip tanks was a very good one
in the days when fuel tanks were regularly run dry. The technique of how
to properly restart an engine that had run dry was widely taught and
understood.
A float carbureted engine or one equipped with a pressure injection carbu-
retor such as the PS5C is relatively easy and benign to restart. The more
”modern” fuel injected Continental can be a little more stubborn.
I think if you will look in the FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual Sup-
plement for your tip tank fuel cells, you will find that there is an instruction
stating that the tanks should be checked for proper fuel flow on the ground
before attempting flight, especially if the tanks have previously been run
dry. They do have a tendency to vapor lock. The boost pump on your
airplane is a suction pump, the same as the engine driven one. It sucks the
fuel. It is not a fuel tank submerged pressure pump such as is found on
many other aircraft.
If the tank has been run dry, it sometimes takes a fair amount of time to
establish adequate fuel pressure. The lower flow required to run the engine
on the ground allows the engine driven or the electric pump to suck the air
from the line, generally without the engine faltering, but if it does, causing
little consternation to most participants. A couple of minutes operation on
each tip tank is usually sufficient.
If the thought of running a tank dry is unsettling, why don’t you consider
getting a local approval to add a transfer pump system such as BDS pro-
vides on their current production tanks. That allows the fuel to be pumped
from the tip to it’s associated main fuel cell.

1475
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Such a system could be added without bothering your current feed system
in any way other than adding a tee fitting and check valve to accommodate
the pump and should be a relatively easy approval to obtain.
Osborne/Brittain has gone to the transfer type system in lieu of the direct
feed now that very few people are taught the proper way to run a tank
dry. In addition, the cost of the direct flow valves such as you have on your
airplane has risen to the point of being prohibitive!
This subject was heavily discussed on this site a year or so ago. You might
try researching the archives.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000417 020401 msg06486.tex]

1476
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

Running Tank Dry

Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:18:36

In a message dated 9/20/00 8:49:09 PM Central Daylight Time, MalL-

[email protected] writes:

I have heard and been taught don’t run ’em dry. You suck
in all the dredge and residue in the bottom of the tank, and
also run chance of messing up the fuel pump when you suck
air into it. Any other comments or opinions on this?

Good Evening MalLShaw,

I have a very hard time understanding how anyone could even think such
a thing could be true.
The pickup does not float on the top of the fuel and if there is crud in the
tank, it is unlikely that it would float on the top of the fuel.
If the crud is not floating on the top of the fuel and the pickup is not on
the top of the fuel, why would there be any greater likelihood of sucking
crud into the lines when running the tank dry than when it is feeding in
the ordinary and normal manner?
Some fuel pumps might be damaged if they ran for an extended period
with no fuel to help lubricate and cool them, but I have never heard of any
pump being damaged by operating dry for the length of time it takes to
run a tank dry and then perform a restart.
In the large piston airliners, where we had a lot of tanks and limited range,
it was common practice to run tanks dry. With multiple tanks, a lot of
excess fuel can be left around the airplane that is doing no one any good
and adds undesirable weight.
When turbine engines became the norm, things changed. Turbines don’t
restart well and fuel quantity measurement became more accurate. In
addition, the systems were designed so that fuel could be transferred to a
tank that was feeding the engine so that some tanks could still be run dry
and yet not have the engine experience fuel starvation.
Running a tank dry is a technique that should be learned just like a cross-
wind landing is a technique that should be learned. Because you know how
to do it doesn’t mean you have to do it, but it is nice to know how.
Different engines and different fuel systems have different problems so it
pays to have aircraft specific knowledge.
First off, there is no unusable fuel in any Bonanza model 33, 35 or 36 if the
airplane is flown in a normal coordinated manner. You will always get at

1477
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

least as much fuel out of the tanks as they are said to hold.
The original ones were twenty gallon tanks. They were listed as having
19.5 usable and one half gallon unusable. I have never seen one that took
less than twenty gallons to be filled unless the tank has become unsnapped.
The twenty-five gallon tanks were listed as twenty-five usable with one half
gallon unusable and the forty gallon tanks were listed as forty gallons usable
with one half gallon unusable.
Unfortunately, there were some very uninformed people who didn’t realize
that if you slipped toward the side of the tank on which you were operating
the engine that there was a chance that the tank inlet may be unported.
The lawyers and the FAA got involved and now we have some very stupid
rules concerning unusable fuel and excessive amounts of fuel that are re-
quired for takeoff. In addition there were flapper valves and containers
added to the fuel tanks which decrease the quantity of fuel they will hold
and have introduced crud which clogged screens and injectors. The FAA
and the lawyers keep thinking we should make the airplanes idiot proof,
but I would sooner eliminate the idiots!
Airplanes which are equipped with float type carburetors generally restart
very easily. The ones with pressure carburetors, such as the early Bonanzas,
restart relatively easily and the fuel injected ones can be started safely with
just a little knowledge of the technique required.
Most tanks can be run dry without the engine actually being ran dry of
fuel if the fuel pressures are adequately monitored and suitable action taken
with proper dispatch.
Even if the engine does quit, I have never seen one that could not be
restarted if it is given even half a chance.
I always run my tanks dry anytime I have a range requirement at all and
I try to run each one dry at least once a year just to make sure that I
don’t have collapsed tank or some other anomaly which would preclude my
aircraft having all of the fuel capability which I think it has.
Yours for running the tanks dry and keeping all of the last ditch fuel in one
tank!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000920 231836 msg13795.tex]

1478
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

Running Tank Dry

Thu, 21 Sep 2000 00:07:19

In a message dated 9/20/00 10:58:04 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

In the large piston airliners, where we had a lot of tanks and

limited range, it was common practice to run tanks dry.
I’ll bet the passengers loved that! ;-)

Come on now Eric,

I said we ran the tanks dry, I didn’t say we let the engine quit!
There is a major difference.
There is technique involved and knowledge is required to do it correctly.
I run the tanks dry on my airplane all of the time. My engine rarely quits
or even hesitates. I did run a tank dry and allow the engine to quit a couple
of months ago just because it had been so long since I had had one quit
when running the tank dry that I wanted to make sure that my restart
procedures were still valid.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000921 000719 msg13798.tex]

1479
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Running Tank Dry

Thu, 21 Sep 2000 10:23:48

In a message dated 9/20/00 11:35:12 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:
I did run a tank dry and allow the engine to quit a couple of months ago
just because it had been so long since I had had one quit when running the
tank dry that I wanted to make sure that my restart procedures were still
valid.
What are the procedures? I just switch to another tank and give it a short
shot or two of the boost pump and it fires right up.

Good Morning Eric,

On the passenger carrying large piston aircraft, we monitored the fuel pressure and it
generally gave more than adequate warning such that we were able to switch tanks and
reestablish fuel flow with no interruption of the steady beat of the engine.
However, we were taught to be ready to take immediate action should there be an inter-
ruption in the power. The suggested procedure was to reduce the throttle to somewhere
between closed or a zero thrust position, switch tanks, reestablish fuel pressure, slightly
enrichen the mixture, add throttle to normal power and then relean the engine.
The fear was that the engine might surge and even overspeed if the fuel pressure was not
established smoothly. The governors on those big engines were relatively small compared
to those that we have and could not compensate as rapidly as ours do.
I tend to do a similar dance when I let the engine quit in the Bonanza. It probably isn’t
required, but I do it anyway, just in case.
One point about the four engine aircraft though. Even if the engine were to quit,
it wasn’t a very pronounced and noticeable event. There was a slight change in the
droning sound, but the rpm remained the same with maybe just a slight warble as the
governor reacted to flatten the prop to maintain engine rpm. On airplanes that were
equipped with an autopilot and that did not have torquemeters, if the engine quit for
some reason other than fuel starvation, the only engine instrument indication of a power
failure might well be the drop in cylinder head temperatures.
As you have noted, most modern engines and props will restart with no action other
than to switch the tank. A gentle massage of the electric boost pump may help and
definitely makes the pilot feel he/she is accomplishing something. Depending on the
altitude, shoving in the mixture may flood the engine and possibly delay or preclude a
restart. A similar situation could occur if the boost pump is turned on and operated
continuously on a fuel injected engine or an engine equipped with a pressure carburetor.
The engine could be flooded.
If the mixture had been set far on the lean side, I have always enrichened it a bit as

1480
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

I was taught. After the education we have received from George, I now wonder if the
enrichening was necessary at all and I may eliminate it from my procedure or, at most,
twist it in a half turn or so.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000921 102348 msg13813.tex]

1481
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Running Tank Dry

Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:06:53

In a message dated 9/21/00 10:57:46 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob, How do you know you have run a tank dry if the engine does not
quit?
Thanks,
Bill A36

By a drop in fuel pressure or fuel flow. Not perfect substantiation, but it seems to work
quite well for me. My tanks always take all of the fuel I expect them to after using
that procedure. My electronic fuel flow shows a drop just before the fuel pressure gauge
starts to wiggle.
I have a very reliable warning device on my airplane. It is called Thelma Jean. I tell
her to monitor the fuel flow and fuel pressure. When she says: bob Bob BOB, with
increasing emphasis on each bob, I generally have the tank switched before the third
BOB and the engine rarely misses a beat.
Works as well as any system I have ever used.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000921 120653 msg13822.tex]

1482
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

Running Tank Dry

Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:29:59

In a message dated 1/24/01 11:08:36 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I have Brittain tips - the ones that gravity feed to the main sump. Once
last year I ran one dry, switched to a main with fuel in it and continued
the flight (with elevated blood pressure). The next flight I switched to the
tip (now full) and had no fuel - a surprise that was not appreciated by my
wife. Mechanic and I could find no problems after draining/pumping fuel
from all tanks. I have had no problem since – but I don’t run them dry
anymore.
K Corliss N911EZ E35

Good Evening K,
The operating instructions for the Brittain tip tanks suggest that anytime you have run
a tip tank dry in flight you should always run off of the that tip for a few minutes on
the ground before takeoff.
It takes a few moments to clear the air out of the line and establish proper feed.
At idle or slightly above, the engine won’t even sputter or fluctuate while refilling the
line due to the very little amount of fuel needed at that low power.
It always worked fine for me on any Brittain tip tanks I had.
I always ran my Brittain tips dry.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010125 002959 msg01736.tex]

1483
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Running Tank Dry/Fuel Capacity

Tue, 2 Feb 1999 09:54:46

Good Morning Tom and All,

In a message dated 2/2/99 7:19:01 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

So, don’t worry about losing an engine on a go-around if you’re feeding

from a tank with only 10 (not the minimum takeoff 13) gallons on board.
But, for goodness sake, don’t initiate a flight with this bare-minimum fuel
load.

I would like to take this opportunity to add my agreement to Tom’s statement.

Strictly from memory, I haven’t looked it up, the listed unusable fuel in the early straight
35s was one half gallon per side.
I did a fair amount of testing some forty years ago associated with a planned long
range flight (that never came off), and found that the one half gallon figure was very
conservative.
Every time I ran the tank dry, including in some very high angle of attack situations,
the tank took over twenty gallons to fill.
I was in coordinated flight at all times. It didn’t occur to me that any one would fly
around in a skid with low fuel state but since so many people were stupid enough to do
so, we are stuck with the current totally ridiculous restriction requiring over an hours
fuel in each tank before we can takeoff!
I make a point of running each of my tanks dry at least once a year just to check that
things are still OK. The only time I have ever had a fuel tank accept less than the
placarded fuel was on an occasion in someone else’s Bonanza when the tank had become
unsnapped due to a plugged vent and it had wrinkled up enough that it retained about
a gallon of fuel that was not available. In that case, we were aware that the tank had
come loose and were flight checking it to see just how much difference the unsnapped
tank would make in the fuel retained.
Long before the Beech lawyers stuck us with their totally unnecessary takeoff fuel re-
quirement, I had established a minimum takeoff requirement of my own of ten gallons
in the tank on which I was taking off. If someone else said that they were willing to
depart with five gallons I would NOT consider that to be foolhardy.
The fuel system on the Bonanza, Debonair, Travelaire and Baron line is one of the
best in the industry. Any long slim tank is going to have problems with feeding during
slipping or skidding situations, whether airborne or on the ground.
You can unport the fuel pick up in any short wing Piper (certainly NOT equipped with
a long slim tank) if you are in a sustained slip toward the side on which the tank is
located with less than full tanks.

1484
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

Fortunately, no one has been stupid enough to require an hours fuel to be in both tanks
on those airplanes for every takeoff.
Do you suppose that means that the short wing Piper pilots are better pilots than the
Bonanza drivers?
Maintain balanced flight and if you must slip for landing purposes, do it with the tank
from which you are feeding on the downwind side.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990202 095446 msg01705.tex]

1485
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Running Tanks Dry

Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:42:35

In a message dated 1/24/01 10:30:01 PM Central Standard Time, ralph [email protected]

writes:

On the fuel injected engines it’s easy to see the end of the tank coming.
Just watch for a fluctuation in fuel pressure and you can make the switch
without losing any power. If you miss that indication the wife is sure to
let you know it’s time to switch tanksg.
Cheers, Ralph

Good Evening Ralph,

I’m with you!
I run my tanks dry on a regular basis just to check that all of the fuel capacity that I
think is there really is.
If Thelma Jean is aboard, the engine rarely actually quits. I assign her the task of
monitoring fuel usage so we know when the tank is likely to run dry and then assign
her the task of watching the fuel pressure gauge during the last few minutes be fore the
tank is empty. When the fuel pressure needle wiggles, she will say Bob, BOb BOB, each
time with increasing intensity. By the third Bob, I always have it switched and fuel flow
reestablished.
Sometimes, when I am without a passenger, my attention will be diverted and I do not
note the fuel pressure wiggling before the engine starts to lose power. Generally I will
catch it before it actually quits, but there might be a small surge or two. Even if it
quits totally and I decide to reduce the power settings somewhat prior to the restart, it
always starts within three or four seconds. No big deal.
Thelma Jean does help a lot though!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010124 234235 msg01727.tex]

1486
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

Running Tanks Dry

Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:19:20

In a message dated 1/25/01 3:09:06 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Now is this Thelma Jean an approved model with an STC or do you get a
field approval. Seems to be a very effective low fuel warning. If we all had
a Thelma Jean, maybe there wouldn’t be any more quiet crashes.

Good Afternoon Jim,

When I first started to use the Thelma Jean, I was a little concerned about the legality,
but research has assured me that as long as the Thelma Jean is not attached to the
airframe by any device more permanent than the seat belt, it is OK to use.
It comes under the same rules as an Oxygen system. A long as is it suitably restrained,
no special approval is required.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010125 161920 msg01782.tex]

1487
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Unusable Fuel
Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:30:02

In a message dated 11/5/99 4:50:44 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

If the airplane is flown at normal approach speeds, the outlet will not
unport, regardless of the flap setting and the quantity of fuel in the tank
In the pattern, even the turn to base and final will be no problem PRO-
VIDED it is coordinated?
I didn’t know about the unporting due to flaps and exteme vertical descent.
Thanks.
-jts

Good Evening John,

There is just NO time that the tanks will unport if the airplane is flown properly. Some
of those who fly with their feet on the floor and give our favorite steed an unsavory
reputation as a tail wiggler may have some difficulty. The worst offender of that group
won’t find more than a gallon or so of unusable fuel even in fairly turbulent air.
The forty gallon tanks were originally listed by Beech as having forty gallons usable
and one half gallon unusable on each side. The twenty and twenty-five gallon tanks
listed one half gallon of unusable per side that was part of the twenty or twenty-five as
appropriate.
I have never ran any tank dry which did not take at least the amount of fuel for which
it was placarded. Some of the forty gallon tanks have taken as much as forty-one and
one-half gallons to fill!
If the tank is not properly installed or is allowed to become unsnapped, there is a
possibility of some wrinkles developing which would cause fuel to be trapped and not
available to the outlet. That is one reason for intentionally running a tank dry now and
then, so that if your capacity is less than it is supposed to be, you will find it out!
The addition of the fuel limitations for takeoff and the increase in listed unusable fuel
was strictly a lawyer driven stupidity, but, it is the law. To disregard it for takeoff would
be a violation, but there is nothing that says we can’t use it all!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19991105 183002 msg10208.tex]

1488
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.4. OPERATE-FUEL

Tank Capacity
Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:58:01

In a message dated 2/21/01 8:31:03 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I notice that when topping the tanks (93 A36, one 40 gal tank each side),
there is still airspace left when no more fuel can be added because it threat-
ens to spill out through the hole. Does anyone know how much unused room
there is in the tanks? For those with tip tanks, a way to find out would be
to fill them, fill the tip tanks, then transfer as much fuel from the tips into
the mains as they will hold, then re-fill the tips. Has anyone tried this?
Does anyone know how much extra space there is?
tia dvh

Good Evening David,

I have never tried to transfer from a tip to a full main when the airplane was on the
ground, but I have accidentally turned on the tip pumps when airborne and dumped
twenty or more gallons over the side!
I often fill my mains to the maximum they will hold when planning a very long flight.
I have noted that if I fill them till they do overflow the fill port, then wait two or three
minutes, there will be room for another two or three-tenths of a gallon to be squeezed
in. I have always assumed this was caused by the weight of the fuel pushing the tanks
out to more completely fill the cavity.
If I do this on a hot day and then park the airplane for an hour or two, the fuel will
expand and flow out the overflow vents.
From this completely unscientific and unsubstantiated data acquisition procedure I have
deduced that the tanks just won’t handle any more fuel than can be put in via the fill
ports!
If you, or anyone else, should try transferring the tip fuel and find I am wrong, I would
look forward to being told all about it!
Incidentally, I have never found a ”Forty Gallon” tank which did not have over forty
gallons of USABLE fuel. The so called ”three gallons of unusable fuel” just does not
exist if the airplane is flown in a normal coordinated manner.
If you want to get the maximum range from your airplane, check with your fuel supplier
to see if a higher density fuel is available in your area. In addition to using that higher
density fuel, chill it in a deep freeze to just as cold as you can get it and don’t put any
fuel in your tanks until just prior to takeoff. Takeoff on one tank and switch to the other
one just as soon as you are safely airborne.
That should burn out enough fuel to allow for expansion as the fuel warms up!

1489
10.4. OPERATE-FUEL CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010221 215801 msg04337.tex]

1490
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.5. OPERATE-LDGGEAR

10.5 OPERATE-LDGGEAR

1491
10.5. OPERATE-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Gear Extention Speed

Thu, 8 Feb 2001 09:37:19

In a message dated 2/8/01 1:15:15 AM Central Standard Time, Ernie [email protected]

writes:

Bob,
153 IAS is the Vlo and Vle for the 36 series with the caveat of ”Do not
extend, retract or operate with landing gear extended above this speed
except in emergency”
Ernie Ganas BE36 E-160 DVO (Novato, CA)

Good Morning Ernie,

Interesting. My V35B POH shows 152 for Calibrated Airspeed, 154 for Indicated Air
Speed with the same caveat. Probably just a few changes made along the way in who
was writing the handbooks.
When I owned my straight 35s, I stuck religiously to the 100 mph (87 Knots) limit, but
I knew a lot of folks who didn’t.
Those teeny little rods on the nose gear doors were the ones that bothered me.
My discussions with the Beech test pilot occurred during those days. I never owned, or
to my knowledge, flew one that had the beef up kit installed so I am not sure what all
it consists of.
The main gear doors don’t look much different on my V35B than I remember them on
the straight 35s except for the actuating arms and the hinges. They appear to be a little
heavier, but I don’t have any around to check these days.
I still normally slow my airplane to around 120 knots before throwing out the rollers
and down to 105 to 110 before extending the barn doors. My former employer requested
that we try to get the machines slowed to the minimum speeds for gear and flaps before
using them, if at all practical. They claimed it not only saved fuel to do it that way,
but that less wear and tear was evident on the components.
I figure if it was good for a 747, it’s good for a V35B.
However, as I believe you, Tom and all have said, I wouldn’t hesitate to throw out the
gear anytime if safety demanded it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010208 093719 msg03120.tex]

1492
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.5. OPERATE-LDGGEAR

Gear Extention Speed

Thu, 8 Feb 2001 09:54:46

In a message dated 2/8/01 7:47:56 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob: Mine are definitely larger than 1/8” - they are pretty beefy. By the
way, in my new POH, under emergencies, it says that for stability in IFR
or poor weather or bumpy conditions - throw the gear out - it does not
even state a maximum speed for doing this !? I still wish I had a higher,
”official” gear extension speed. Steve

Good Morning Steve,

Your airplane is one of the late airplanes, not an early one!
There were a ton of changes between the straight 35 and the A35, a lot of changes on the
B35, quite a few on the C35 and then just a few now and then from there on out. The
major changes to the structure and the airframe, especially as concerns maintenance
and durability items, occurred on the very early airplanes.
My gut feeling is that your K35 gear doors are not a lot different from mine, but I would
still stick to the published speeds unless there is a safety issue involved.
I suppose you could get out some parts books, check all of the part numbers of the doors
actuating mechanisms, skin thickness at the attach points and such. Maybe that would
allow you to make a determination to your own satisfaction that no serious damage is
likely to occur with a higher gear extension speed, but I think it is easier and more
comfortable to just educate yourself on the techniques required to get it slowed down to
the published operating speeds when needed.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010208 095446 msg03121.tex]

1493
10.5. OPERATE-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Gear Position Indicator

Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:41:04

In a message dated 2/24/00 10:54:39 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

Have you seen or has anyone on the list rigged something like this and
found it of use? In thinking about it the info seems not much different
from ’not up’ and ’not down’ that the single light system provides.

The Swift arrangement has, as you note, the same problem in that it does not let you
know if the knuckles are over-center. By the way, they still need some spring pressure
to remain over-center. If I were to ever land when I had any indication that the gear
might not be fully down and locked, I would choose the smoothest runway I could find
that was dead into the wind, try to avoid all side loads on the landing and rollout, then
park it straight ahead and get out of the airplane very gingerly. I would make no effort
to leave the runway or move the aircraft until I had checked the spring load on the gear
knuckles.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000224 124104 msg03519.tex]

1494
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.5. OPERATE-LDGGEAR

Landing Gear Position Indicator

Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:42:39

In a message dated 2/23/00 9:27:37 AM Central Standard Time, beech [email protected]

writes:

Has anyone worked on this thing? Can they be made to work reliably?
Presuming I have to fix it, is there anything someone can tell me about
any peculiarities during repair? Thanks in advance!

Good Morning John,

You’re right, it is kinda flimsy!
On top of that, it doesn’t tell you much. If it say the gear is up, that means that the
nose gear is not down. If it says the gear is down, that means the nose gear is not up.
It is connected to nothing but the nose gear and will not tell you whether even that
gear is down and locked. It is a rather poor device, but it is required to be in operable
condition.
I would recommend just messing around and bending things as necessary until you are
happy with the looks! Don’t rely on it for anything!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS One of our Chicago area pilots recently had an alternator failure which he did not
notice. By the time he wanted to throw out the wheels, the battery was gone.
He cranked it down, but it didn’t go all of the way. You know the rest, the gear collapsed
after landing.
I wish Beech had never mentioned the fifty turns in their manuals! Some take fifty-three
or fifty-four turns!
In any case, please crank until you can crank no more!! Forget about the number of
turns!!
If you crank so hard that you break something, at least the gear will be down and locked
when you do it.
On the earlier gear boxes, you will feel a very positive stop when the gear is all the way
down. On the newer ones, it just gets hard to crank. Crank until you can crank no
more!
[ARTICLES/20000223 114239 msg03422.tex]

1495
10.5. OPERATE-LDGGEAR CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Manual Gear Extention

Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:39:05

Good Afternoon All,

Just got to add my two bits!
The early airplanes are MUCH easier to crank down the gear than the new ones. You sit
enough lower so that the handle falls more comfortably to hand. Unfortunately many
folks have added padding to the seats in the early airplanes such that the seating is
almost as high as the new airplanes with adjustable seats.
I always taught that one should trim the airplane for flight at the slowest speed com-
fortable in the conditions that prevail. That means 80 mph or less for light weights and
80 knots or less for the heavy ones.
It goes without saying that there should be adequate room for a stall recovery if one
should be encountered.
I then recommend setting up at least a 500 foot per minute climb rate before starting
the gear down.
It helps a little for those last few turns, if one will pull the nose up to almost the burble
and then ease it forward to a little less than one ”G”as the last few turns are performed.
With a little practice, even an old worn out weakling like me can get the gear down
fairly smartly and with little fanfare.
The extension during a climb adds a lot of stability due to the power that is carried and
it covers for the extra drag that will occur as the gear comes down.
Works for me!!
Happy Skies,
Ancient
[ARTICLES/19990107 153905 msg00314.tex]

1496
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.5. OPERATE-LDGGEAR

Manual Gear Extention

Wed, 23 Feb 2000 22:31:01

In a message dated 2/23/00 9:06:56 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

—- Original Message —– From: Phaedra Hise [email protected] I had

to hand-crank mine...and it was really hard to fly the plane AND crank
the gear. . I learned to crank a bit, fly a bit, crank a bit, adjust the trim,
crank a bit, fly some more, etc. It took a long time and I was really tired.

For What It’s Worth,

The procedure I recommend for cranking the gear down is as follows.
On the later model aircraft, slow the airplane down to 80 to 85 knots, on the early
ones use 80 to 85 MPH. Apply enough power to fly level at that airspeed and trim the
airplane appropriately. Add about five inches of manifold pressure and allow the airplane
to climb at the trimmed speed. Start cranking. You may count the turns if you want,
but keep cranking until you can’t crank it anymore. The airplane will gradually come
back to level flight. Keeping the speed as low as possible will make it easier to extend
the gear. Going from a climb to level flight is a LOT more comfortable than having
to continually add power and adjust the trim between bouts of cranking the gear. On
the earlier airplanes with the bench seats, the seating position is enough lower that the
cranking is much easier. With the adjustable seats, the seating position is enough higher
that even a gorilla will have to bend down to an uncomfortable position to handle the
crank! I find it easier on the later airplanes to have the seat in the furthest aft position
possible.
It works for me! (But it was a lot easier when I was fifty years younger!)
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000223 223101 msg03466.tex]

1497
10.6. OPERATE-LOP CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

10.6 OPERATE-LOP

1498
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.6. OPERATE-LOP

LOP Opeartion
Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:35:04

In a message dated 1/11/00 4:37:00 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I’ve heard of the nitrous oxide/nitric acid thing, Howard. I’m not a chemist,
not a scientist, but I just don’t believe it. Sounds like theory borne of ”we
don’t know, but here’s an idea” type thinking.
Wonder if anyone has any data supporting the corrosive gas theory???
Has anyone who is flying LOP seen evidence of this? Did it show up in any
of the big radials over a 40-year period?

Good Evening Howard and All,

I have been gone for a couple of days and have several hundred messages which I have
not yet read, so if this comment is off subject, please accept my apologies in advance!
When I was studying for my Flight Engineer Rating in the early fifties, one of the texts
which I used mentioned a problem with ”oxygenation” of the valves on certain prewar
P&W 1830s.
I don’t recall the exact model numbers involved, but we were taught that some of the
engines should not be leaned on the lean side of best power due to a characteristic of
some of the early valves whereby they would shed metal around the stem and produce
a ”necking” thereof when operated in an environment of surplus oxygen. Sometimes
the heads would even break off. We were also taught that all of the ”modern” engines,
(1946 or so and later) had valves made from a material that was not susceptible to the
oxygenation problem.
Every big round engine that I ever operated was generally run on the lean side of best
power. Note that I have said lean of best power! We had no EGT gauges in those days
and only the R2800s and R3350s had torquemeters. The R2000s and R1830s which I
flew didn’t have such fancy stuff. We would occasionally power lean the 1830s by leaning
one side till we could feel the power loss and then leaning the other side to get the ship in
trim. When we first got the DC-6, we only leaned two BMEP below best power. Hardly
any drop at all. After a few months, we went to abut a twelve BMEP drop which would
have been around five percent on the lean side.
The machine that really went lean was the R3350 turbo compound on the DC-7. Right
from the time they were delivered, they were aggressively leaned. We had a lot of
training about the engines and it took some time to convince the troops that it really
worked, but if the specified procedures were followed, things worked fine. The guys that
were constantly losing engines were the ones who didn’t follow the book and ran them
too rich!
I believe Jim Northcutt mentioned that we had a CHT gauge on both the front row and

1499
10.6. OPERATE-LOP CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

the rear row of cylinders on the R3350 so that we could spot the problem if a distribution
shaft had slipped and was unbalancing the fuel distribution between the front row and
the rear. If that happened, it wasn’t the row that was lean that had the problem. It
was the one that was too rich. It would burn the cylinders up! If we found a difference
of 25 degrees or more between the front and the rear rows, we would either feather the
engine or at most, operate it at very low power.
Rambling on and possibly out of context!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000111 193504 msg00612.tex]

1500
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.6. OPERATE-LOP

LOP Operation
Tue, 11 Jan 2000 22:50:18

In a message dated 1/11/00 6:05:40 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

I am posting this to this group because in addition to your answers, I am

interested in knowing the type of engines of the people in this group who
are running LOP with GAMI injectors. I am interested in knowing the
approximate ratio of installs of GAMI injectors on IO-470 verses the IO-
520/550 engines. Also, do you have a comparable number of test hours in
your shop on 470’s verses 520/550’s? Thanks...
Glenn

Good Evening Glenn,

I am currently operating an IO-550B with GAMIs and regularly operate it on the lean
side of peak EGT. At very high altitudes when I can’t get over 65 percent or so, I will
occasionally operate it at peak to get a little more power.
I have been operating on the lean side of best power in Bonanzas and other airplanes for
over fifty years. It was the way I was taught and I have seen no reason to do otherwise,
except on those airplanes and engines where the distribution between cylinders was too
poor to be able to do so. I have had various E series engines that had almost perfect
distribution and others of the same model where the distribution was terrible. The
same thing goes for the IO-470 except that I have flown very few that had any decent
distribution at all!
Does that help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000111 225018 msg00623.tex]

1501
10.6. OPERATE-LOP CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

LOP Operation
Sun, 16 Jan 2000 15:23:21

In a message dated 1/16/00 12:26:11 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

What I want to know is, how far LOP should I go?

Good Afternoon Dave,

It depends!
The key element is, how good a job is the engine doing of converting the pressure
developed in the cylinder into productive propulsion power. If you lean to the extreme
at a high RPM, low manifold pressure situation, there is the possibility that you might
move the pressure developed down so far on the power stroke that some power is lost.
There is also the potential for having a higher than desirable temperature of the gases
as they pass the exhaust valve.
The leaner the mixture, the slower it burns, the lower the pressure, the slower it burns.
Both are effectively retarding the timing of the engine. The high RPM effect is also
toward retarding the total timing.
Sure would be nice if we could adjust the mechanical timing on the fly wouldn’t it?
Until that happens and until we get better information about where the peak pressure
is occurring, I limit my leaning to a maximum that still results in a steady decrease in
EGT.
If the EGT starts to stabilize, or goes up a little with continued leaning, I figure that
the flame front is being moved too late in the stroke and I change something, RPM,
manifold pressure or mixture being the only things over which I presently have control.
Most generally that happens at high altitudes and I don’t have any option other than to
run somewhat richer than the leanest at which it will run. It is my totally uneducated
feeling that avoiding the point at which the flame front is still active close to the time
that the exhaust valve opens, has to provide more power than if it is still burning at the
bottom of the power stroke! It also reduces the temperature of the gas as it passes out
through the exhaust valve.
The power curve on the chart shows a very flat curve from a point rich of max economy
to the point at which it ceases firing. I figure anywhere from peak EGT to the point
at which the engine quits is relatively efficient as far as economy is concerned. Further
leaning mainly provides additional control over the temperature at which the engine
operates. In addition it affects the timing of the power pulse.
Once you have leaned past peak EGT, take note of the airspeed. Try leaning another
20 to 25 degrees, let it stabilize and note the speed and fuel flow. Keep doing that and
you should be able to judge fairly close where the optimum lean point occurs.

1502
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.6. OPERATE-LOP

Sure will be nice when George provides us with a method of controlling just when that
peak pressure will occur!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000116 152321 msg00887.tex]

1503
10.6. OPERATE-LOP CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

LOP Operation
Sun, 16 Jan 2000 16:38:21

In a message dated 1/16/00 2:39:25 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

At high power (70 to 85%) leaning to 60 to 90F LOP works well to mod-
ulate the horsepower and still use a wide open throttle for lowered engine
pumping losses. I do this routinely, down low in normally aspirated engine
operations.
At lower power, say, 60 to 70%, leaning anywhere past 50F lean of peak
on a normally aspirated engine is really self defeating, as the BSFC gets
slightly worse at 60F LOP, rather than 30 to 50F LOP.
Below about 60%, leaning to 10 or 20F lean of peak works fine, and leaning
further makes the BSFC go up.

Good Evening George,

Thanks for the accurate data!
The numbers you provide are consistent with the experiences that I have encountered.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000116 163821 msg00893.tex]

1504
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.7. OPERATE-MISC

10.7 OPERATE-MISC

1505
10.7. OPERATE-MISC CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Cold Weather Operation

Thu, 30 Oct 1997 08:15:27

HI Ron Davis,
In a message dated 97-10-29 14:03:24 EST, you write:

I was planning on going down to the local K-Mart and buying a cheapie
full or queen-sized electric blanket and laying it on top of the cylinders
overnight with the setting on low or medium, and plug the cowl vents with
old pillows or whatever’s handy.

Sounds interesting. Never tried that. The big thing seems to be able to contain the
heat. You will probably need good insulation on the inside or outside of the cowling.
I made mine from some old comforters, blankets and plastic but those professionally
made ones are surely lighter and easier to use.
One thing that I used for heat many years ago was a little propane heater. I have
forgotten what they are called and I am not a camper but they are flameless after they
are lit and are OK for use in a tent or other enclosed space. I pulled the lower cowl cover
and placed it inside, then covered the engine with my Blankies and an outer moisture
proofing of plastic material. It always worried me a little bit but I never discerned any
problems.
I knew of some people who used the exhaust of a car to heat the engine. They would
put the covers over the cowling, run a flexible pipe from the tail pipe up under the cowl
near the aircraft exhaust, go have a cup of coffee and when they returned the engine
would be warm to the touch. I think that is an atrocious idea. It didn’t heat the interior
of the engine at all and the combustion residue from the car exhaust was all over the
engine compartment. Bad idea.
I made a device to run the heat from the car interior into the cowling thru the bugeyes.
Had a board which fit in the car window and one duct to the left side with another from
the right and a fan powered from the cigar lighter plug in one to get the air circulating.
That heated the engine at least as well as the systems that an FBO would put on your
airplane but the engine people tell me that an hour or so doesn’t really heat the engine
through and through so that is no longer recommended.
Don’t forget to see that the battery is properly warmed. A lead acid battery fully
charged has no cranking power left at somewhere around 36 degrees F below zero. Even
down around 10 or 15 degrees above, heating the battery helps a lot. I don’t know if
yours is still buried behind the firewall or not, but if it is, I would pull the cover and
maybe even slide it out a little to get the heat around it.
If you get a start and then don’t keep it running you may ice the spark plugs even on
a fairly warm engine. If it’s real warm, no problem, but when the cold air is sucked in
on the start and the initial firing occurs H2O is released from the combustion and if the
plugs are below 32 degrees ice may form across the plugs and short them out. It usually

1506
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.7. OPERATE-MISC

happens on those times when each cylinder only fires one ot two times before it quits.
Obviously the best bet is a thoroughly warmed up engine!!!
Nothing is easy is it?
Your Electric Blanket idea sounds neat. Can’t wait to hear how it works.
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19971030 081527 msg02258.tex]

1507
10.7. OPERATE-MISC CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Cold Weather Operation

Sat, 1 Nov 1997 18:37:10

Hi all,
I sent this out Friday morning and it hasn’t shown up on my list yet so I thought I
would try again. If you are receiving a duplicate, please accept my apologies.
Hi Bruce,
In a message dated 97-10-31 06:30:33 EST, you write:

I saw a drawing and I believe an article, I think in an old ABS Mag., which
adapted an electric space heater for heating the engine compartment. The
author attached an outside vent plate used for an electric clothes dryer, to
the front of the space heater. Then attached the dryer duct hose to that
and ran the hose into the engine compartment.

This sounds good to me but I want to caution again that heat must be applied for a
long time.
HOW LONG?
I don’t know for sure but I would probably go for 8 hours or so, at LEAST two or three
as a minimum.
A high heat such as the old Herman Nelson heater can make the engine too hot to touch
in fifteen minutes but the crankshaft may still be ice cold. A small amount of heat
applied with good insulation and protected from the wind over a long time will do a
better job than rapid heat.
I think that electric heat will be just fine, but I wonder about the propane units that
do not have heat exchangers. Some years ago I tried a small gasoline fired heater which
did not have a heat exchanger and when the heat was applied to an engine at around
zero degrees F, a 1/4 inch coating of ice covered the entire engine and interior of the
compartment within about fifteen minutes. It eventually melted and in an hour or so
the engine was dry and warm. This was before I had been enlightened to the necessity
of long term heating but I still never did it again. I didn’t like all of the moisture and I
wonder about the residue of the combustion being deposited on the engine and electrical
components.
Does anyone know if propane has the same problem? Even the WW II Herman Nelson
heater used a heat exchanger. I imagine that was the reason why.
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19971101 183710 msg02310.tex]

1508
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.7. OPERATE-MISC

Cool Down After Parking

Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:21:52

In a message dated 9/9/99 11:01:41 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Murphy’s Law and Mother Nature I don’t want to test any more than I
have to. If the cowl is left open without the owner there to close it if a gust
of wind comes up, he/she is asking for a bent cowl door. Jerry O.

Good Evening Jerry,

I am a devotee of the open cowl door for cool down purposes, but I agree totally that
the door must be guarded carefully to avoid problems.
I have been doing it for over forty years now, but it still worries me every time.
I find that if I open it right after parking there is about a fifteen to twenty minute period
during which I am around the airplane, either for fueling or just securing it. There is
often a considerable delay getting transportation available which gives me a reasonable
time to cool things down
I am something of a fuss budget with my airplane and I don’t use it for fast transporta-
tion. I fly it for the pleasure of messing around with the aircraft and the more time I
can spend with it, the better I like it!
I suppose those who are flying for the speed it provides are in a hurry to leave the airport
and wouldn’t want to spend time baby-sitting the cowl doors.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990910 002152 msg08217.tex]

1509
10.7. OPERATE-MISC CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Cool Down After Parking

Fri, 10 Sep 1999 12:47:58

In a message dated 9/10/99 10:10:25 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Bob, I love you, man. But I hope I can conclude that after your post-flight
duties, you close the cowl doors before leaving the aircraft. Jerry O.

Good Morning Jerry,

Most assuredly!
I don’t leave the airplane alone at all without closing the cowl doors. If a rapid pit stop
is required, the doors aren’t opened till after I have returned! I have considered methods
to brace the cowls more securely so that such close attention would not be required, but
have come up with no light weight and yet, secure method. Does anyone have any neat
ideas?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990910 124758 msg08246.tex]

1510
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.7. OPERATE-MISC

De-icing Airplanes The Easy Way

Sat, 2 Jan 1999 19:00:11

Good Evening All,

There are probably better and lighter weight garden sprayers available now then there
were back when I was actively involved in an air taxi operation but here is how we did
our deicing.
We carried a two gallon garden sprayer of the type which has a pump to build up air
pressure for spraying the liquid.
We also carried two or three gallons of plain old automotive antifreeze, I guess that’s
ethylene glycol, but don’t really know. It could be that some of the modern aircraft
specific deicing fluids might be better.
We found that almost every fixed base operation had a janitor sink or other facility
where we could obtain hot water.
The snow would be removed with brooms or whatever ’til there was just a layer of ice
left on the aircraft.
We would spray the aircraft with hot water ’til things were fairly clear and then throw
one gallon of antifreeze in the sprayer and fill it up with the hottest water we could
obtain.
A thorough spraying using that two gallons of mixture seemed to be plenty for a Bonanza,
Baron or other small aircraft (in most cases).
Once in a while, a second gallon might be required, but that was rare.
It is cheap and not excessively heavy to carry in the airplane as standard winter equip-
ment.
I have used that procedure with temperatures as low as zero F with good results.
For what it’s worth!!
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19990102 190011 msg00037.tex]

1511
10.7. OPERATE-MISC CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Hung Starter
Tue, 29 Aug 2000 10:40:14

In a message dated 8/29/00 12:53:10 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Hi Bob, The voltmeter shows actual battery voltage. When cranking the
starter it will bottom out because the meter minimum scale is approx. 10
volts. With alternator on engine running it indicates approx. 14.2 volts.
Alternator off engine running it indicates batt. voltage. It’s an after market
gage with a two position switch. the other circuit goes to my emergency
batt. bus ie; 7 amp hr. sealed wet cell. I have a 71V35B. It was added
by the original owner Brainard Holmes who was the CEO of Raytheon.
Cheers Carmine

Good Morning Carmine,

Sounds good, voltage is nice to have.
While I hope you never have the opportunity to see what happens if the starter hangs
up, I think the voltage would go back to normal as soon as the starter disengages. Once
it is free spinning and no longer required to push around that old engine, the amperage
should drop way down. I don’t think you would note any difference in voltage.
Right off the top of my head, I can’t think of any way to tell that the starter is still
running after an engine start other than to check for power on the starter buss, flow
through that buss or abnormally high output from the alternator. The light checks for
power very well at relatively low cost. It would take an awfully big shunt to carry the
normal starting current of the starter in order to have an ammeter in the circuit.
Somebody may have a Bonanza wired for that, but I have never seen one.
The thought just popped into my head that we did have such an indication on the
Caravelle, but that’s another story!
To check for the high output on the alternator, you would need an ammeter in the
alternator output circuit. It is my recollection that the early Bonanzas had the ammeter
wired to indicate the output of the generator, not the input into the battery. Most of
the later ones have the stock ammeter wired the same as most automotive applications,
the ammeter shows flow to or from the battery.
I have an Electronics International Volt/Ammeter installed with three shunts, the orig-
inal factory one that reads in and out current to the battery and another one in the
output lines of the standby and primary alternators.
I THINK I could tell that the output was higher than normal if I thought to check it!
I installed the warning light shortly after Beech started offering it on the production
airplanes. Fortunately, I have never had the occasion to find out if it works!

1512
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.7. OPERATE-MISC

Have you ever had occasion to use the standby battery? I know Mooney is offering a
dual battery setup, but I don’t know how it is hooked to the system.
There are many so possibilities and ways to spend our money, it gets very confusing!
(Plus Heavy!)
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000829 104014 msg12770.tex]

1513
10.7. OPERATE-MISC CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Hydraulic Parking Brakes

Tue, 12 May 1998 21:33:32

Good Evening All,

For what it is worth, I have never flown an airplane with hydraulic brakes which was
deemed safe to leave parked with only the parking brake set. Most airplanes that I have
flown were chocked and then the brakes were released to avoid excessive heat build up in
the brake units. Even if the brakes were cool it was never deemed prudent to rely on the
hydraulics holding pressure. Even our food service and fueling vehicles were equipped
with chocks which were always used even for short term parking to avoid the possibility
of the vehicle rolling into the aircraft.
It may have been just a company policy, but that is how we did it on everything I flew
from the DC-3 to the 747. I have flown a couple of small planes with mechanical brakes
which had separate parking brake levers similar to those found on cars of the thirties.
One of my bosses felt it was OK to park those with just the parking brake set but most
of the pilots chocked them or used tiedowns anyhow.
Leaving any airplane without chocks or tiedowns seems to border on carelessness con-
sidering the industry history of aircraft parking brake usage. I would like to hear what
your lawyer thinks about that.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980512 213332 msg02444.tex]

1514
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.7. OPERATE-MISC

Noise
Mon, 26 Oct 1998 19:05:48

Good Evening Skip Weld,

In a message dated 10/26/98 4:43:39 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

How loud is a Bonanza supposed to be? I flew my k-35 [ with a 520 and
black mac 3 blade prop], the other day for the first time in several months
and was astounded at the level of exhaust noise from the engine.

Obviously there will be a difference of opinion as to what is noise and what is the lusty
sound of power to be relished by we aviators.
I would first check to see whether the flame cones are still in your mufflers. They tend
to burn out rather quickly and will make some difference in the perceived noise level.
I installed BDS silencers on my tailpipes a couple of years ago and they reduced the noise
somewhat though they tend to lose effectiveness after a few hundred hours of operation.
Various sound deadening materials are available for the Bonanza and all are productive
with the heaviest doing the best job of noise reduction The later airplanes with heavier
windows and more insulation as standard equipment are quieter but your airplane can
be made as quiet as any if you are willing to put up with the extra weight.
The Aero Sound Shield folks do a good job but so do lots of interior shops.
Our five children were all raised in Bonanzas from day one and we never used anything
special to protect their ears. The airplanes were obviously very early models with rel-
atively poor soundproofing but we also used a lot less power while flying. Maximum
allowable cruise RPM was 2050 on the early Bonanzas.
The oldest is now forty-eight and none of them has any abnormal hearing loss. Our
youngest son is currently flying a Beech model 18 that is in need of some super sound-
proofing and in the meantime he has purchased some child sized headsets which his two
and six year old children wear.
He has set up a VCR and a portable television so that the children can watch movies
and cartoons while they fly and they seem very happy to wear the headsets so that they
can enjoy the show.
There have been discussions on children’s headsets and soundproofing of the Bonanza
on this site within the last year or so. You might want to check the archives to see what
you can find.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19981026 190548 msg06307.tex]

1515
10.7. OPERATE-MISC CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

OWT
Sat, 15 Aug 1998 00:37:32

Good Evening CBarnhart,

In a message dated 98-08-14 18:08:51 EDT, you write:

Isn’t it strange that some bits of information come to be believed by large

segments of a population even when they are untrue?
Comments?

A lot of the OWTs that we contend with were derived from reasonable efforts to put
a lot of bodies into airplanes over Europe and Japan with the greatest possibility of
getting them back home in one piece while still spending minimum time training for the
job.
Those that did survive the wars and evidenced an interest in staying in aviation, became
the CAA (later FAA) inspectors, flight instructors, test pilots and other experts of post
war aviation.
It was reasonable that they felt what they had been taught was the gospel and the only
truth. After all, it had brought them home!
Unfortunately, many of those wartime training expediencies found their way into training
manuals and airplane operating manuals over the years and it is extremely difficult to
get them out of our hair.
After all, it’s in print so it must be true!
Not only that, but that neat old P-47 pilot who taught me how to fly said that was
proper and how could he be wrong?
Look at the difficulty George is having convincing modern pilots that the methods used
by Lindbergh and others of the era were technically sound and reasonable.
George even has modern instrumentation and evaluation techniques to provide direct
information that was not available earlier to bolster his position and yet many refuse to
accept it because that is not what they were taught.
We need to continue to question and evaluate all that we hear, be skeptical but not
closed minded.
There is a lot to be learned, but there is also a lot to be relearned.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980815 003732 msg04361.tex]

1516
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.7. OPERATE-MISC

Tie Down Technique

Sat, 12 Feb 2000 22:33:44

In a message dated 2/12/00 7:27:28 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I used the old Cessna gust lock technique (pilot’s seat belt around the
yoke).

Good Evening Once Again Bill,

Just a little more comment! Tying down the airplane with the stick back as you describe
is always the wrong thing to do! This is true whether on conventional gear or tricycle
gear aircraft.
The elevator should be nose down or neutral, never in the nose up position. That is a
common error and is responsible for a lot of blown away aircraft.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000212 223344 msg02863.tex]

1517
10.7. OPERATE-MISC CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Towing
Tue, 16 Sep 1997 10:33:54

Hi Buz,
A very wise decision!!
I have one of the axle tow units from Idaho and I love it. At my advanced years and
with the overweight Bonanza (fits well with it’s overweight pilot) I now own it has been
essential to my being able to operate without assistance..The one thing that I have been
nervous about has been putting that stress on the yaw damper ram and the nose gear
steering mechanism. I try to watch very carefully to be sure that the towing turn limits
are not exceeded. I think that the tire on my unit might slip before damage was done
but I sure wouldn’t count on it! I think it would be great if they would adapt it to use
the pins.
The pins are definitely the way to go!!!
I have had the pins broken by line service at a couple of very top line FBOs. When it
has happened, they have called to ask permission to replace the pin at their expense. I
have asked that it be done by a licensed mechanic and I have checked the job after. I
can’t imagine anyone being charged as one of our members mentioned!
Let us all know how your new tug works out.
PS Some one mentioned towing the airplane backwards by using the tail tiedown. Beech
evaluated that some years ago and said that it should NOT be done. After considerable
pressure they came out with a tow force that could be used without damaging the
structure of the airframe (the tiedown itself is not the weak point) and it was in the
order of 550 pounds. They specified that a weak link of the required strength be inserted
in the towline and further stated that they still didn’t recommend towing by the tail.
If the airplane was to be towed the recommended procedure was by attachment to the
MAIN gear with a bridle to equally distribute the load. The prefered attachment point
for the tow line was at the main gear axle and if that was not practical, as low on the
gear structure as possible.
Yours,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19970916 103354 msg01746.tex]

1518
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.7. OPERATE-MISC

Towing Backwards
Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:26:25

In a message dated 7/13/99 11:31:38 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Wonder if you could pull it backwards hooked to the nose gear.

Bob Briggs

The factory also says that the nose gear is not the strongest thing on the airplane. I
do believe there is something in the manual about the design limits being exceeded if it
hits a four inch curb at normal taxi speed? I don’t think it would be as strong towing
backwards as it is towing forward. The factory recommended procedure is to tow it
backwards by hooking to the main gear as close to the axle as possible.
One of their bulletins described a towing bridle which consisted of a couple of small
pipes fitted into the axle as the small jack fittings do. Those were fastened to two equal
length ropes which were long enough to reach just aft of the tail. They were then joined
to the towing means.
I have never seen such a device used, though I have tied rope around the struts just
above the axle and made such a bridle when extracting an airplane from the mud!
Works great!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990713 132625 msg05978.tex]

1519
10.7. OPERATE-MISC CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Towing By the Tail

Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:21:13

Good Afternoon Joe and Larry,

In a message dated 98-08-18 12:31:31 EDT, you write:

We will attach the cable to the tail tie-down and pull it into the hanger.

Be sure and put a ”weak link” in the tow cable. Beech some years ago sent out a service
notice concerning pulling the airplane backwards by the tail tie down and I believe
they recommended a weak link that would break at around 550 pounds of pull to avoid
overstressing the tail assembly.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980818 132113 msg04492.tex]

1520
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.7. OPERATE-MISC

Towing By the Tail

Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:47:04

Good Morning Michael J. Beccario,

In a message dated 98-08-28 07:34:59 EDT, you write:

I also have a 35-J and I installed a winch in my hangar about 6 months

ago. I have quit an incline and a 1 inch step up at the entrance to the
hangar. I was very concerned regarding towing the aircraft by the tail so I
reasoned that I could safely tow it from the nose gear in the same manner
a tow bar would.

It is proper that you worried about the strains that would be put upon your J35 aircraft
by winching it up the incline and over the 1 inch step up into your hangar. The solution
you arrived at is quite ingenious.
The only difficulty is that Beech does not endorse aggressive towing of the aircraft either
forward or backward by the use of the nose gear.
That is one of the reasons the shear pin was put on the nose gear and moving it by any
other method than those shear pins is not encouraged by the factory.
Their suggestion for moving the aircraft over any but the smoothest ground is to attach
ropes to the main gear and, in extreme cases, to the nose gear so that the pull is applied
low on the gear legs and does not transfer through any of the structure but is applied
directly to the wheels.
Any operation other than the Beech recommended procedure makes your operation a
”test” operation and may lead to damage to the airframe.
I understand that many of the commercial aircraft towing devices (including the one
I use) attach to points other than the towing pins. That does not relieve us from the
responsibility of evaluating the force that might be applied by methods other than those
approved by Beech or Raytheon.
I don’t know of any ”weak link” number that has been recommended for towing such as
you use, but I would definitely determine a safe amount of pull and install a weak link
in the towline.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980828 104704 msg04928.tex]

1521
10.7. OPERATE-MISC CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Towing By the Tail

Tue, 13 Jul 1999 08:38:53

In a message dated 7/13/99 6:04:28 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

I thought you weren’t supposed to haul the plane around by the tail
tiedown; it’s reported to not be stressed/braced adequately for that.

Good Morning Eric,

Very true statement!
Beechcraft did bow to the pressure of those who wanted to pull the airplane backwards by
using the tail tiedown and ran some tests. The bulletin that resulted still recommended
that it not be done, but stated that if one really wanted to do so, a weak link be inserted
in the line at the tail tiedown. To the best of my recollection, the strength of that weak
link was to be no more than 550 pounds.
They further specified that the loads be applied very much in line behind the aircraft. I
don’t remember the cone of acceptability, but I do believe it was something like ten or
fifteen degrees from the centerline.
I am sure I have a copy of the report somewhere because I used the data to get a local
approval for a glider tow hitch on several Bonanzas. If anyone is real interested, I will
try to locate it. Worst case, I could probably contact the FAA and look up the 337 from
some of those airplanes.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990713 083853 msg05968.tex]

1522
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.7. OPERATE-MISC

Towing With Gust Lock Installed

Mon, 22 May 2000 09:00:51

In a message dated 5/22/00 7:05:04 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Hello, I inadvertently pulled my ’66 V35 out of the hanger with the control
lock in place. This involved turning the nose wheel with the tow bar. Did
I damage anything? During taxiing, the aircraft seems to steer as always.
I haven’t flown it.
Alan S.

Good Morning Alan,

If you are discussing the pin in the control column control lock, there is no problem at
all. You can tow your airplame anywhere and turn the nosewheel to the turn limits all
you want without causing any damage at all. If you have installed some sort of a pin
in the rudder pedal casting, I wouild limit movement of the aircraft, though I have seen
towing done without damage while a rudder pin was installed.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000522 090051 msg08461.tex]

1523
10.7. OPERATE-MISC CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Towing backwards
Mon, 13 Mar 2000 00:43:42

In a message dated 3/12/00 3:56:56 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

But I think I would just pull carefully by the tail ring, or if I felt really
anal about it I would build a fixture to attach to each side of the nose gear
for a balanced pull...the way the tugs attach.

Good Evening Bob,

The method called the ”Pobanz Method” is the one recommended by Beechcraft. I
don’t know what Raytheon recommends.
No strain should be put on the nose gear which is not applied via the tow pins on
the strut. They are designed to break before something critical breaks. No stress either
forward or backward should be applied to the nose gear in any other spot, but a rearward
force would be much worse than a forward force.
Beech did not approve of pulling on the tail tiedown either. It wasn’t the strain on
the tiedown ring that they were worried about, it was the strain being put on other
components of the rear portion of the fuselage. After extensive pressure from users, they
finally came up with approval to pull via the tail tiedown if a weak link was inserted
in the line. To the best of my recollection, the allowable force was around five hundred
pounds.
The best way to pull the airplane backwards is to tie a rope around each main gear strut
and attach them to a balanced bridle.
The second best way is to use the method recommended by Beechcraft and which has
recently been referred to as the Pobanz Method. If the tow ring portion of the pin which
is stuck in the axle of the main gear is rigged properly, the pull will be so close to the
strut that the angular strain on the scissors will be inconsequential.
Be especially careful about putting rearward strains on the nose gear. They have been
folded by pushing backwards on the approved towing pins. Shouldn’t have happened,
the pins should have sheared, but it has happened. Pushing or pulling backwards on
the nose gear is probably the absolutely worst way to move the airplane!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20000313 004342 msg04669.tex]

1524
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.7. OPERATE-MISC

Towing by the Tail

Mon, 2 Jun 1997 18:46:46

Use caution if you intend to pull it by the tail! Beech recommends that it be pulled by
the main gear. They did come out with some information about 40 years ago concerning
a weak link to be used in the tow line if you intend to pull it back by the tail tiedown. I
think it was around 450 or 500 pounds maximum. If anyone is really interested I might
be able to find the data in some of my old files. I used the information as substantiation
for some glider tow hitches that I made for Bonanzas many years ago. Incidentally I use
a five or six year old Power Tow and am quite pleased with it. There have been many
design changes in these units over the years and not all of them were improvements. My
son recently bought a new one with the clutch and likes my old one without the clutch
better. (So do I)
[ARTICLES/19970602 184646 msg01029.tex]

1525
10.7. OPERATE-MISC CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

performance Numbers
Sat, 5 Sep 1998 14:58:50

Good Afternoon Larry Templeton,

In a message dated 9/5/98 8:59:56 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

We have a 1963 Deb with an IO-470N. Trues out at about 158-160 kts at
10,000 ft on 11.5-12 gph. This is slower than I would have expected, but has
been fairly constant throughout several engine rebuilds and a prop change.
We do have a number of external antennas but not enough to make more
than a 5 kt difference. Larry Templeton

I am not real sure what your Deb should be doing but those numbers seem consistent
with what I have experienced in my limited experience with those airplanes.
As to speed of the Bonanza/Debonair line in general. I believe that some of them are
just plain fast and some are just plain slow.
You can strip off all of the antennas, fit all of the doors just right, re-rig to your hearts
content and some of them will still be relatively slow.
I think there is the possibility of as much as ten mph difference between the fast and
the slow of any certain model, weight or whatever.
The airplane I currently have is the slowest of it’s gender of any I have owned or flown.
One of my children has a J35 that is the fastest J that I have ever seen.
There was a rather lengthy discussion of speed and some of the efforts made by Mike
Smith to increase the Bonanza speed on this site a few months ago. You might check
the archives.
I am of the opinion that if all else is equal, there is a four or five mph advantage for
the V-tail over the straight tail but I have flown Debbie’s that were faster than similar
vintage V-tails with equivalent power and weights. If you really want a fast airplane I
guess the only way is to test hop the individual airplane and buy the fast one.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980905 145850 msg05271.tex]

1526
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.8. OPERATE-PROP

10.8 OPERATE-PROP

1527
10.8. OPERATE-PROP CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Excessive Prop Cycling

Fri, 28 Aug 1998 01:51:55

Good Evening Glenn Humann And All,

I just wanted to comment that I agree completely with the evaluations

contained in Glenns communication.
In a message dated 98-08-27 02:07:32 EDT, you write:
I acquired the following article excerpts from past issues of the ABS Maga-
zine regarding excessive and/or deep cycling the prop. Sounds like cycling
the prop multiple times and deep cycling are not too good for the engine
and prop.
From the November 1987 issue:
Mr. Reick’s mention of ”deep cycling his prop three or four times now” is
also an unnecessary and VERY HARMFUL action during runup. NEVER
exercise a propeller mounted on an engine which has a counterweighted
crankshaft any more than once, unless extreme cold soaking has occurred,
and then only to make note of the first indication of RPM drop. Except at
installation of the propeller, the prop dome and remainder of the system is
full of oil and needs no fillup of ”warm, clean oil.”
From the February 1994 issue:
The prop on the new engine should not be cycled. Cycling the prop will
fill it with oil, but places an extreme load on the piston rings and cylinder
wall. This load could cause the rings to fail to seat. (probably doesn’t do
a broken in engine too much good either.)
From the October 1995 issue:
Does it do any good to deep cycle the prop several times during engine
run-up to purge the air from the system? No! Deep cycling the prop
is not recommended by any engine manufacturer on engines that have a
torsionally damped crankshaft (so-called counterweights).
I hope the above information is of benefit.
Glenn Humann

Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator
[ARTICLES/19980828 015155 msg04910.tex]

1528
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.8. OPERATE-PROP

Excessive Prop Cycling

Fri, 28 Aug 1998 02:02:21

Good Evening George,

In a message dated 98-08-27 09:53:11 EDT, you write:

Why does running the engine at 1700 rpm and deep cycling the prop, which
maybe loads the engine up to a 30 to 40 psi BMEP, ”bad” for the engine,
but loading the engine up at 100 to 140 BMEP at cruise ”good” for the
engine?

Only what I’ve been told but it make sense to me. The problem is not the ”loading”
of the engine but stealing the oil away from the front main bearing before it has fully
warmed up. The necessary amount of oil to operate the prop during a normal takeoff is
a lot less in proportion to that necessary to cycle the prop heavily before takeoff.
Happy Skies,
Bob
[ARTICLES/19980828 020221 msg04911.tex]

1529
10.8. OPERATE-PROP CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Stopping the Prop in Flight

Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:08:40

In a message dated 9/21/99 10:12:00 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]

writes:

Do you set up for ”landing assured” and then try the old routine of stopping
the prop and kicking it horizontal with the starter, or do you just let the
insurance company have it?

And from Tom Turner this morning:

2. Level the prop: Gosh, almost every Beech I’ve ever flown has a three-
bladed prop, so this point is moot g. If landing was assured, I was com-
pletely configured for touchdown and hand a couple hundred feet left to
go, and I had a two-bladed prop, I’d try to level it out with the starter.
tt

Good Morning Eric, Tom and All,

The only way that I have been able to get a Bonanza prop stopped in the air, has been
to put the aircraft in a ballistic curve, slow it below the one ”G” stall speed and put it
in a skid. Even then, it won’t always stop turning. With the electric prop, placing it
in maximum pitch (low RPM) position helps. I doubt that the engine will stop turning
before touchdown from a normal approach even with the fuel and ignition shut off. BUT!
I haven’t tried it with a three blade or four blade prop!
Incidentally, one of the very few advantages of the four bladed prop is that it will help
prevent nose bowl damage during a maingear extended, nose gear retracted landing!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/19990922 100840 msg08718.tex]

1530
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.9. OPERATE-TIPTANKS

10.9 OPERATE-TIPTANKS

1531
10.9. OPERATE-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

Fuel Management
Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:14:43

In a message dated 3/16/01 4:12:05 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected]

writes:

I liked to empty the tips as soon as possible if we were to be heading into

bumpy weather.

Good Afternoon Pete,

This is an interesting statement!
I do just the opposite. I try to have the tip tanks full if I am going to be heading into
turbulence. The bending moment on the wing is definitely less with the tanks full than
it is with the tanks empty. In fact the bending moment with the tip tanks installed, but
empty, is about five percent greater with the empty tanks installed than it was before
the tanks were installed. The tip plate effect of the tip tank moves the center of pressure
outboard enough that the wing is slightly weakened with the tanks installed, but empty.
Adding the fuel overcomes that deficiency and adds extra margin to the structure. I
don’t think the structure is dangerous either way, but the aircraft is definitely less likely
to lose a wing with the tank full than it is with the tank empty.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
[ARTICLES/20010316 181443 msg06000.tex]

1532
CHAPTER 10. OPERATE 10.9. OPERATE-TIPTANKS

Tip Tanks - Effect on Speed?

Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:35:17

Good Morning Tom,

In a message dated 98-01-13 11:10:04 EST, you write:

At both locations I found that, with tip tanks installed and at approxi-
mately equal takeoff weights, the airplanes took about 200 feet more to
break ground (using the POH takeoff procedure), and at Vx climbed at
100-150 fpm lower climb rate, than the same airplanes under the same
conditions with factory tips installed.

That is real interesting! It never dawned on me to check T/O and climb performance. I
would be very interested in anyone elses experiences or thoughts on why this might be
so.
Maybe I have been blinded by my positive view of tip tanks.
Thanks Tom.
Happy Skies,
Bob Siegfried
[ARTICLES/19980113 113517 msg00276.tex]

1533
10.9. OPERATE-TIPTANKS CHAPTER 10. OPERATE

1534
Index

747SP, 474 Beech 18, 182, 203, 591, 604, 976, 1278, 1297,
1345, 1517
707, 25, 255 Beech, Walter , 984
720, 25, 85, 232 Beechcraft 17, 996
727, 103, 208, 232, 255, 389, 474, 970 Beeche 18, 100
737, 232, 255 bird strikes, 106
747, 6, 19, 25, 50, 132, 144, 255, 389, 474, 683, Bose, 333
964, 970, 1294, 1460, 1494, 1516 BPPP, 198
767, 255, 389, 988 Brackett air filter, 1116, 1381
777, 1269 Brittain, 243
2001, 927 Brittain B-4, 241
Brittain B-5, 241
ADF, 952 Brittain B5, 242
Aero Commander, 1005 broke, 1299
Aerostar, 375 broker, 1298, 1300
air skeg, 656
C-46, 70
airplane, Cessna 140, 324
Caravell, 796
airplane, Cub, 160
Caravelle, 2, 25, 71, 965, 970, 1008
airplane, Fairchild 24, 160
carpet, 1117
airplane, King Air, 324
Century I, 122
airplane, Pacer, 324
Century IA, 238
airplane, Staggerwing, 160
Century IIB, 246, 247, 375
airspeed, 1140
Cessna 180, 188
airspeed indicator, 1122
Cessna 210, 429
altimeter, 287
Cessna Skymaster, 470
angle of attack indicator, 209
CG, 426
annual inspection, 1112
Commander, 375
annunciator, 867
compass, 204
antenna, 224 Constellation, 1290
Aspen, 15, 966 Convair, 111, 389, 1361
AT-6, 436 Convair 240, 375
ATC, 103, 858 Convair 340, 103, 138, 401, 804, 966
attitude indicator, 119 Coordinator, 309
Autel GPS mount, 850 cowl flaps, 671
autopilot, Century IIB, 245 Cub, 436
autopilot, King KFC-200, 245 Culver Cadet, 426
autopilot, S-TEC PSS-60 unit, 245
autpilots, 245 DC-10, 255, 962, 964
DC-3, 19, 70, 100, 102, 104, 188, 203, 436, 468,
B-25, 188 663, 692, 804, 965, 967, 970, 972,
B-720, 1008 976, 977, 988, 1009, 1010, 1342, 1407
baffles, 513 DC-4, 12, 25, 70, 102, 436, 452, 663, 804, 988,
Baron, 461 1053, 1464, 1516
battery, 1027 DC-6, 10, 25, 52, 101, 103, 410, 436, 452, 574,
battery box, 1022 682, 804, 963, 988, 1014, 1277, 1290,
BDS, 513, 1477 1357, 1365, 1386, 1388, 1464, 1501

1535
INDEX INDEX

DC-6B, 188 King KCS-55, 285

DC-7, 10, 25, 101, 436, 454, 572, 574, 804, 963, King KCS-55A, 364
1014, 1049, 1354, 1356, 1386, 1388, King KLN88, 927
1501 King KLN89B, 927
DC-8, 25, 292 King KLN90B, 927
deice boots, 102 King KNS-80, 323
King KX-155, 343
Eclipse, 1271, 1294
electric prop, 1423, 1465 L1011, 964
Electronics International, 583 landing gear, 702
ELT Battery, 334 leaning, 1432
engine break-in, 1033 Lear Jet, 1293
engine restart, 1463 Lear Romec fuel pump, 459
engine vibration, 1039 Lenkite, 1033
engine, OX-5, 572 Lockheed Lodestars, 977
engine, OX-6, 572
engine, Wright 3350, 572 Machen conversion, 571
Magic Hand, 1464
flaps, 1128 Malibu, 1294
flight training, 203 Martin 404, 355
four blade prop, 737 Mentor, 52
FSDO, 952 Meyers, 1016
fuel burn, 1423 minor modification, 1239
fuel cell, 611 Model 17, 984
fuel drain, 1079 Mooney, 238, 426
fuel flow, 591, 773, 1086 moving map display, 902
muffler, 1066
Garmin 295, 165, 844, 851 Mullicoup, 82
Garmin 430, 234, 324, 326, 922, 927, 929, 937 MX-20, 330
Garmin GPSMAP 295, 175 MX20, 329
Glidair, 486
GNS 430, 325 navigation data, 904
GNS-430, 330 Navion, 1016, 1290
GPS, 904 Northstar CT-1000, 353
GPSS, 236, 326, 365 Northstar M-1, 919
grey code, 891 Northstar M3, 937
GX-60, 330
oil, 1033
HSI, 286, 325, 331 Osborne, 1478
oxygen system, 696
ICEX, 486
ICG, 486 P&W 1830, 1049, 1501
icing, 100, 102, 734 P&W 2000, 1501
Insight, 263 P&W 2800, 1049, 1501
InterAv, 492 PAN-OPS, 1307
Interav, 494 Paris Jet, 1008
partial panel, 119, 150
J-3, 132, 166, 1460 Piper, 238
Jacoby, Itzahk, 131, 142, 156, 157, 178 Piper PA-11, 1050
Jacoby, Itzhak, 112, 122, 151, 172, 177 pitot tube, 695
Jeppesen, 74 preheat, 1431, 1508, 1510
JeppView, 353 prop transport, 1501
jet transport, 103, 1277 prop, four blade, 684, 726, 738
JPI, 263, 583, 668 prop, three blade, 726, 737, 738
propellor deice, 734
Kennedy, John, 142 PS5C, 589, 593, 1063
KING 76C, 343 PS5C carb, 461

1536
INDEX INDEX

PS5C pressure carb, 1420, 1422, 1432, 1464, Trimble, 919, 922
1465 Trimble 2000, 926
PS5C pressure carburetor, 591 Trimble 2000 Approach, 891
purchase, 1153 Trimble 2000A, 234
Trimble TNL 2000, 875
radio range, 204 true airspeed, 1122
RAIM, 874, 921 turbo-normalizer, 801
Rajay, 803 turbocharging, 801
RAPID, 1130 turbonormalized, 806
rear bulkhead inspection, 1154 turn coordinato, 305
rear seat removal, 1062 turn coordinator, 80, 119, 150, 155, 172, 278,
resolver, 285, 325, 867, 927, 934 287, 296, 303
rigging, 1128, 1173 Twin Beech, 991, 1003, 1297
running a tank dry, 1463 Twin Bonanza, 35, 1005
running tank dry, 1465
United Air Lines, 356, 406, 1049
S-Tec, 234, 246, 247, 365, 814 UPSAT, 892, 908, 915, 922, 1331
Sandel, 237, 364, 365, 397, 929 UPSAT GX-60, 285
serializer, 891 UPSAT GX50, 927
Shadin, 263, 868, 891 UPSAT GX60, 927, 959
Shadin Miniflo, 1086
shedding wings, 714 vacuum pump, Airborne, 1259
Skyma, 844 vacuum pump, Rapco, 1259
SlimLine 30, 330 vacuum pump, Sigma-Tek, 1259
slip, 1277 vortex generators, 656
spar cracks, 1187
spar inspection, 461 WAAS, 943, 946
speed cleanup, 714 weighing, 1206
spins, 209 windshield, 714
stall and spin training, 207 Wright 3350, 1049, 1351, 1501
standby vacuum, 119 WX7A, 413
Stearman, 52, 1378
step, 686, 702, 1062, 1162–1165, 1169, 1171 XIM, 486
straight 35, 461
Strikefinder, 413 yaw damper, 232, 239, 252
Super V, 1007 yoke installation, 1211
Swift, 1496

T, &B278
T-38, 26, 54
T%B, 331
T&B, 155, 172, 287, 305, 383
tach ometer, 270
tachometer, digital, 269
Tactair T-1, 243
tail wiggle, 812
Tanis, 668
TERPS, 47, 834, 939, 1306, 1307, 1313, 1322,
1326, 1327
tetraethyl lead, 1372
Thompson fuel pump, 459
tip tank, 737
tip tanks, 331, 618, 758, 759, 768, 771, 773,
774, 782, 784, 788, 793, 796, 1206,
1445, 1477
tow pins, 1520
towing, 1520, 1527

1537