C-150 problems

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name

Display name:
Tom-D
I have found several of these lately. This is the flange that bolts to the bottom of the carb.

First discrepancy, Carb air makes no RPM change.
Second one was found was during annual.
Third was shown to me by the owner.

Got a C-150? you should probably take a look probably
 

Attachments

  • eJdstX5iTpe6ZUm6geNb5w.jpg
    eJdstX5iTpe6ZUm6geNb5w.jpg
    120.5 KB · Views: 174
  • +mMj859bQgWPnJGdUieMQQ.jpg
    +mMj859bQgWPnJGdUieMQQ.jpg
    208.2 KB · Views: 168
  • WH65evPMS%OpCkZ1cBQ+UQ.jpg
    WH65evPMS%OpCkZ1cBQ+UQ.jpg
    78.5 KB · Views: 163
  • coH2BFoURmqg62pLpEf%+A.jpg
    coH2BFoURmqg62pLpEf%+A.jpg
    97.3 KB · Views: 163
The FIX.
 

Attachments

  • MvQO3Z+AR4S+zRtgg5fXRw.jpg
    MvQO3Z+AR4S+zRtgg5fXRw.jpg
    146 KB · Views: 162
Is brazing appropriate on an air box? Let's see the inside.
 
It looks like the box is sheet metal (heavy gauge, but still) and the flange is welded to the box? So the cracks are where the weld came loose? I ask because those cracks (particularly the first picture) look more like cracked plastic or cracked paint where the metal beneath is gone.

So what is it actually?
 
Looks like an opportunity to ingest some flaky coating and dirty air?

Does that air box “hang” mainly from the carb flange, with a flimsy secondary support?

What to fix it with and how to fix it? Anything that dries hard, is inflexible, and does not adhere well is more ingestible material for the engine in the future.

Better to leave it be and clean up the flaky paint? Or use a soft RTV type material? Or gasket & rivets? Or buy a new box?
 
That is not a repair I would want to see on my airplane. Either replace or fabricate a new one.
 
These air boxes are made of light steel sheet. They're actually a Continental part. They are entirely supported by the carb.

Now, think about this: Every time a cylinder fires, the mass of the propeller causes the engine to rotate a little bit in the opposite direction of prop rotation. Prop torque reaction. That carb airbox is a long way below the crankshaft centerline, so when the engine fires it gets jerked sideways a bit. That causes flexing of the box around that neck where it's spot-welded to the box itself, and when you bend metal often enough for a long time, it work-hardens and cracks. Steel is better this way than aluminum, and aluminum airboxes are frequently troublesome. We often find some horrific repairs on airboxes, and it seems that some guys don't understand that an airbox failure can mean an engine failure.

The O-200 is supposed to have four Lock-O-Seal washers on the carb spider (intake manifold) installation to the crankcase. They are washers that have a rubber O-ring molded into them. The nuts that hold it on are supposed to be finger-tight and cotter-pinned. The whole thing--spider, carb and airbox-- is supposed to be able to flex sideways a fraction of an inch. That does two things: It keeps that silly carb happy, since vibration tends to shake fuel out of the bowl vent and into the carb throat, where it causes uneven and rich mixtures and rough running, and it minimizes the shaking of that airbox. This particular airplane probably doesn't have the proper washers, or the nuts have been tightened way too much, or it spent some time in the past like that.
 
The 0-200 airbox was originally made by brazing the sheet steel together, this one was repaired in the same way. I used a pre-fluxed brazing rod and a oxy/ace torch just as the OEM did when they made it.
The problem is the top of the airbox is too thin to take the vibrations and will crack around the neck, as shown in the pictures.
Continental never welded these, the neck was simply flanged, and brazed in place prior to the top plate being brazed into place.
 
Last edited:
Don't tell anyone at the FAA or they'll issue on AD.
There are already many reports on these.
If you are flying a 150,170,or a early 172, you should be inspecting these regularly.
They all crack.
 
That is not a repair I would want to see on my airplane. Either replace or fabricate a new one.
Spruce sells the 150 airbox for $185.00 I do advise putting a new one on a 150. but the 172 is $1800. so most owners cheap it out and have the local fabrication shop repair them. I've yet to see an entry in the logs documenting the repair.
 
That is not a repair I would want to see on my airplane. Either replace or fabricate a new one.
OBTW, your Grumman airbox is almost the same as the 150/152 airbox and do the same thing.
 
Is brazing appropriate on an air box? Let's see the inside.
The inside... brazed just as the OEM did. as you can see the box was made by brazing. They place this neck thru a hole in the top plate then flange it, spot weld it to the top plate then braze the top plate in place with the other parts of the box.
 

Attachments

  • T%Vg71b3RxiHFGe1qO91nQ.jpg
    T%Vg71b3RxiHFGe1qO91nQ.jpg
    143 KB · Views: 62
Is brazing appropriate on an air box? Let's see the inside.
You can see the inside prior to the repair in the pictures I posted in the first post.
You can see It was brazed prior to the repair.
 
That repair gives me the willies. Shiver.
Then you should buy new when yours cracks.

When my customer's Dakota intake duct cracked, he sent it out, when it came back it was TIG welded, and the bill was in excess of 5k. (Dakota's intake duct is aluminum) The next 100 hour, it was cracked right beside the new weld.
The 150's airbox repair may be ugly as road kill to you, but it will hold good as new,
probably longer.
 
These air boxes are made of light steel sheet. They're actually a Continental part. They are entirely supported by the carb.

Now, think about this: Every time a cylinder fires, the mass of the propeller causes the engine to rotate a little bit in the opposite direction of prop rotation. Prop torque reaction. That carb airbox is a long way below the crankshaft centerline, so when the engine fires it gets jerked sideways a bit. That causes flexing of the box around that neck where it's spot-welded to the box itself, and when you bend metal often enough for a long time, it work-hardens and cracks. Steel is better this way than aluminum, and aluminum airboxes are frequently troublesome. We often find some horrific repairs on airboxes, and it seems that some guys don't understand that an airbox failure can mean an engine failure.

The O-200 is supposed to have four Lock-O-Seal washers on the carb spider (intake manifold) installation to the crankcase. They are washers that have a rubber O-ring molded into them. The nuts that hold it on are supposed to be finger-tight and cotter-pinned. The whole thing--spider, carb and airbox-- is supposed to be able to flex sideways a fraction of an inch. That does two things: It keeps that silly carb happy, since vibration tends to shake fuel out of the bowl vent and into the carb throat, where it causes uneven and rich mixtures and rough running, and it minimizes the shaking of that airbox. This particular airplane probably doesn't have the proper washers, or the nuts have been tightened way too much, or it spent some time in the past like that.
What you forgot is, the intake spider is mounted on STAT-O-SEAL'S and loose castle nuts, but then the intake tubes are solidly mounted with thick hose to the cylinder heads so the intake spider can't move. So the tubes defeat the stat-o-seals, and the airbox suffers.
Same thing on the 0-300/ 0-235/ 0-320/0-360, carb mounted directly to the oil sump airbox mounted directly to the carb. every thing mounted solid so the 172 becomes the worse offender.
 
What you forgot is, the intake spider is mounted on STAT-O-SEAL'S and loose castle nuts, but then the intake tubes are solidly mounted with thick hose to the cylinder heads so the intake spider can't move. So the tubes defeat the stat-o-seals, and the airbox suffers.
Same thing on the 0-300/ 0-235/ 0-320/0-360, carb mounted directly to the oil sump airbox mounted directly to the carb. every thing mounted solid so the 172 becomes the worse offender.

The O-200's rubber hose intake connections allow that carb/airbox to move sideways when the spider is mounted in accordance with the Continental Overhaul Manual. Try it sometime. It moves. I have fixed at least one rough-running 150 that way.

Yes, the other rigid-mounted carbs are harder on their airboxes.
 
I would not have a problem with that repair, beats the hell out of spending $200-$1800 depending on model..........
 
Try it sometime. It moves.
I have many times. it doesn't move enough to do any good.
When you use the proper hose and clamped properly there is less than a 1/4 inch of the hose that is free and with that stiff hose it won't move.
 

I'd rebuild it with a doubler or some type of reinforcement. Very concerning sucking parts of this fix into the combustion process. It's an area of stress and glueing the area together isn't resolving the root issue.

Good luck with that. Guess my person minimums are different.
 
I'd rebuild it with a doubler or some type of reinforcement. Very concerning sucking parts of this fix into the combustion process. It's an area of stress and glueing the area together isn't resolving the root issue.

Good luck with that. Guess my person minimums are different.
Glueing ? where the hell did you get that?
the repair was done with Brass brazing rod and a torch just like the manufacturer did when they made the airbox.
adding a doubler just makes it crack where the doubler ends. Kinda like mending a fish pole, it will never brake in the repair, but it will brake where the repair ends.
 
Brazing is kind of like gluing. The braze filler does not penetrate the base material, it just sits on top. Soldering is similar.

The OEM used brazing originally because that is what they were trying to do - bond the overlapping sections of metal together to form a box or hole. This repair has different needs. The damaged section needs to meet the base material in strength, which a braze will not do. I would be very worried about the broken base material disbonding and going thru the engine. AC43.13 has more details.

At any rate, it is not my repair or aircraft on the line. Good luck.
 
Lesson to learn here, never show any repair, some one will take issue with it.

even tho it is the recommended method and Done properly,
 
I have many times. it doesn't move enough to do any good.
When you use the proper hose and clamped properly there is less than a 1/4 inch of the hose that is free and with that stiff hose it won't move.

It DOES move, as I have proven several times to several people. Perhaps you could explain why Continental demands that the spider be installed the way they do, then?

Brazing has one advantage: it anneals that work-hardened steel, reducing the cracking risk. But brazing is brass, and brass cracks easily. It's brittle. It's fine for joints that use small gaps and aren't prone to flexing too much, but spread the stuff out on a thin, flexible surface and all bets are off.
 
I know of a couple of vintage racebike frames built from steel tubes brazed together. Very strong. Have held up for years of racing without cracking, and those old motors shake. One that had been crashed bent the tubing all around the joints, but the joints didn't break. I'd trust a braze with the correct filler rod.
 
Lesson to learn here, never show any repair, some one will take issue with it.
Yep

even tho it is the recommended method and Done properly,
Nope

Brazing has one advantage: it anneals that work-hardened steel, reducing the cracking risk. But brazing is brass, and brass cracks easily. It's brittle. It's fine for joints that use small gaps and aren't prone to flexing too much, but spread the stuff out on a thin, flexible surface and all bets are off.
Yep

I know of a couple of vintage racebike frames built from steel tubes brazed together. Very strong. Have held up for years of racing without cracking, and those old motors shake. One that had been crashed bent the tubing all around the joints, but the joints didn't break. I'd trust a braze with the correct filler rod.
See above. Brazing a relatively tight joint, you bet. Brazing a cobweb of open cracks and missing pieces, not so much. The OEM brazing tight fitting flanges, also you bet.

Go read AC43.13 and think about what you are trying to do. Not copy the OEM. Restore the product strength and function.
 
Go read AC43.13 and think about what you are trying to do. Not copy the OEM. Restore the product strength and function.
OMG,, are we back to trying to apply the 43,13 to a Cessna with approved manuals? Need I repeat this airbox was made using brazing.

What's really amazing to me is, so many here didn't even recognize brass when they saw it, yet know every thing there is to know about repairing an airbox that was made using it.
 
I know of a couple of vintage racebike frames built from steel tubes brazed together. Very strong. Have held up for years of racing without cracking, and those old motors shake. One that had been crashed bent the tubing all around the joints, but the joints didn't break. I'd trust a braze with the correct filler rod.
Harley Davidson made all their frames that way. None ever failed, cast necks and other fittingings to 4130 tube all done with brazing, yet some here believe it is kin to gluing, I think I've heard every thing now. :)
 
Lesson to learn here, never show any repair, some one will take issue with it.

Probably true, but I appreciate the post. As a new aircraft owner I'm learning a lot and am still in the "I don't know what I don't know" phase regarding maintenance. Discussions like these are great from my perspective. In any internet forum you could post something like "the sky is blue" and a certain number will argue, insult, belittle, etc. Unfortunately that's the way it is. Anyway, thanks again for the post!
 
Probably true, but I appreciate the post. As a new aircraft owner I'm learning a lot and am still in the "I don't know what I don't know" phase regarding maintenance. Discussions like these are great from my perspective. In any internet forum you could post something like "the sky is blue" and a certain number will argue, insult, belittle, etc. Unfortunately that's the way it is. Anyway, thanks again for the post!
YAVW
 
OMG,, are we back to trying to apply the 43,13 to a Cessna with approved manuals? Need I repeat this airbox was made using brazing.

What's really amazing to me is, so many here didn't even recognize brass when they saw it, yet know every thing there is to know about repairing an airbox that was made using it.

As I said earlier, the neck of that thing was brazed into the steel flange. That's a close fit and puts the braze in shear. Like glue, shear is fine. Tension is not. And like glue, painting it over a web of cracks isn't going to save it. The rest of the box is spot-welded, not brazed.

However: It's your signature, not mine.

That box, IIRC, should have a bracket between the top front of the box and the forward spider bolt. If it's missing, that could be why the metal failed.

upload_2018-3-21_16-54-59.png

We've been here before:

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...t-deal-on-new-ma-3spa-carb.49482/#post-905557

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...tent-loss-of-engine-power.70561/#post-1454186
 
I do not know how this airbox was mounted, it was handed to me, to be repaired, I repaired it and handed it back.

The airbox was spot welded to hold every thing in place, then brazed by the manufacturer.

Study the pictures in post 1, you'll see the neck is flanged below the top deck of the airbox, and the sheet skin is not cracked beyond the flange. the brake occurred around the spot welds and previous brazing. I simply put it back where it was supposed to be and re-brazed.
But extended the braze beyond where it was previously.
 
OMG,, are we back to trying to apply the 43,13 to a Cessna with approved manuals? Need I repeat this airbox was made using brazing.

Please quote the references from the Cessna "approved" manual you used to certify your repair.
 
Back
Top