Magneto questions

Tom-D said:
when the A&P sent the mags away, did they keep the point plate ? or did they send it with the mag? The point plate is the 1.25" X 2.5" plate that was held on the back of the mag by two small screws and allows the "P" lead to connect with the mag.
Click to expand...

Point plate...the plate where all the spark plug leads converge? Didn't sent it, still connected to the plane.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Point plate...the plate where all the spark plug leads converge? Didn't sent it, still connected to the plane.
Click to expand...
No,, that's the spark plug harness, point plate is where the "P" lead hooks up
 
Here's zactly what I got and was what was sent off to Montana:

0b3466_db8cbd9fee6d4f3a949f5a32dbd62f8e.jpg
 
bnt83 said:
Lol! Tom trolling again... I bet every airplane you have signed off in the last 10 years was unairworthy per your "today's definition".
Click to expand...
And you guys are slipping :)

Are you required to be in compliance with the ICAs for your appliances?? or should I ask, when are you required to comply with your ICAs?
 
Tom-D said:
Are you saying Mags are easy to disassemble? That may be true, but putting them back together again requires special tools & pubs.
Click to expand...
No, you deliberately ignored the point. You said infant mortality doesn't happen. I said it does, and you're catching it before it goes flying. Super job.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Well then again...not "zactly since that looks like a 6 cylinder mag.
Click to expand...

Mine are the "short cover" variants. These don't use the P-lead terminal thingy that yours do, just a regular ring terminal.


 
denverpilot said:
No, you deliberately ignored the point. You said infant mortality doesn't happen. I said it does, and you're catching it before it goes flying. Super job.
Click to expand...
Infant mortality is such a remote possibility that it is insignificant. when a new part or rebuilt part fails it is most times induced by the technician.
 
Tom-D said:
Infant mortality is such a remote possibility that it is insignificant. when a new part or rebuilt part fails it is most times induced by the technician.
Click to expand...
isn't that called....."infant mortality"?...which also includes maintenance induced failures.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
which also includes maintenance induced failures.
Click to expand...
When you include maintenance errors to the mix, the odds go way up. But the odds of a brand new unit failing because of manufacturer defects are rare.
 
Tom-D said:
When you include maintenance errors to the mix, the odds go way up. But the odds of a brand new unit failing because of manufacturer defects are rare.
Click to expand...
it might be rare....but the probability of a new unit failing ain't zero. It's higher than after a few 50-100 hours of use. There's lots of science and research that proves that.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I couldn't really tell with that picture. The picture I posted was the mag I have; they could have been the same only one was painted black. Wow....why are those so expensive? They're either really good or really rare.
Click to expand...

I've found it pays to shop around on them. I got factory rebuilt for way less than that.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I couldn't really tell with that picture. The picture I posted was the mag I have; they could have been the same only one was painted black. Wow....why are those so expensive? They're either really good or really rare.
Click to expand...
neither, just expensive because they can be.
 
Tom-D said:
It's nice to fly an unairworthy aircraft.
Click to expand...

If you consider any aircraft that has not fully complied with EVERY airframe, engine and appliance service bulletin ever written to be "unairworthy" then I'd guess that 98% of the US GA fleet should be grounded based on your standards.
 
Silvaire said:
If you consider any aircraft that has not fully complied with EVERY airframe, engine and appliance service bulletin ever written to be "unairworthy" then I'd guess that 98% of the US GA fleet should be grounded based on your standards.
Click to expand...
I guess you missed posts 87

I slipped a SB in as rule and all of ya missed the fact we don't need to comply with SBs in 91
That in fact is why my statement was correct, most aircraft are not in compliance with their ICAs.
 
Tom-D said:
I guess you missed posts 87

I slipped a SB in as rule and all of ya missed the fact we don't need to comply with SBs in 91
That in fact is why my statement was correct, most aircraft are not in compliance with their ICAs.
Click to expand...

But it may not be an SB. Those recommended time limits are listed in just about every Cessna service manual.

(Its funny that Cessna says you can't "overhaul" seatbelts but in the real world belts are rewebbed and replated every day, and look like brand new and come with new TSO tags... see the second page)



 
bnt83 said:
But it may not be an SB. Those recommended time limits are listed in just about every Cessna service manual.

(Its funny that Cessna says you can't "overhaul" seatbelts but in the real world belts are rewebbed and replated every day, and look like brand new and come with new TSO tags... see the second page)



Click to expand...
This pages of the MM for Cessna are included simply for the 135 operators.
 
H'mm... I have an FAA letter on file somewhere that says that the aircraft must be maintained IAW with the instruction manual as it was written on the date the aircraft was born. (I'm paraphrasing just a little)... Mine must be unairworthy--because I refuse to wash the belly with avgas and fine grade steel wool to keep it shiny :-)

With the constant urinary Olympics, no wonder GA pilot/owners are hemorrhaging from CAR3/FAR23 planes to the LSA sector, and taking a lot of A&P business with them... Even though the accident rate might be 4x higher...

(*grin*)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top