Doc Holliday
En-Route
Maybe those guys rebuilt that engine using Permatex on the cylinder bases, and probably didn't torque the crank bolts correctly either.
a real and present danger
- Thread starter Tom-D
- Start date
- Status
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Have you ever read the Forward in the overhaul manual, then tell us what a minor alteration is, and who can make them.
And it has been proven that was not the cause.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
I guess you elect to ignore the fact the 172 had an annual, and this aircraft has sat in the weeds 17 years.
but I guess you rather ignore the facts
Projection. You’re the one worried that some idiot will buy this one without an annual. Why? we’ll I can guess, but I’ll keep it to myself.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
There ya go, trying to spin it.. I show me where I said the buyer wouldn't do an annual/prebuy?
Now you'er just making shi- up to make yourself look good.
You’ve boxed yourself in nicely tom. In the other thread you clearly said if it’s in annual you could trust it’s airworthy.
Mind your business.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
you seem unable to separate one thread from another, two completely different subjects, (the 172 and the aircraft in this thread) and you can't understand the difference. pretty sad.
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
Exactly! People on this board are great at trying to stir the pot when they don’t know the facts.
Juliet Hotel
En-Route
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,634
- Display Name
Display name:
Juliet Hotel
When it was pointed out in the other thread that someone might want to misrepresent what the history of airplane in question was and/or misrepresent how legit the recent annual could be, you were more than willing to disregard the possibility and dig your heels in rather sternly on it if I remember correctly. Now, even though you have no earthly idea what the parties in question plan to actually do, you want to call the federales and report them for a crime they haven't actually committed.
aftCG
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2015
- Messages
- 868
- Display Name
Display name:
aftCG
I'm going to take the other side of this for just a moment, mostly because this is the internet.
So you're saying that unless someone has an A&P they're automatically knuckle draggers with no regard for safety? So all those Van's RVs, Glassairs and such are actually held together with bailing wire? Huh. Who knew?
As for planes not being like tractors or old cars, uh, mine is actually pretty much exactly like them - but only the simple ones.
My real point (and not directed to the above poster)
I don't know Tom but I've read enough of his posts to know that even if you don't like his style: He doesn't suck as a mechanic.
A whole lot of years ago he did exactly what he was supposed to do, and refused to sign his name. I believe he said spar corrosion. I've flown some real s*** and can work with some deficiency but a wing rotting off while I'm using it is a deal breaker.
That corrosion did not improve during these past many years.
He has also disclosed that he knows these bailing wire applicators. If they're going to fly it themselves then "... tree falls in a forest". Darwin will be along shortly to explain.
If they're going to flip it to an unsuspecting buyer, then F those guys.
You really think that most of the potential buyers of the C172 in the other thread are going to do a pre-buy on a $9k plane? You think that those same buyers will see the two planes any differently?
- Status