Wrong.
Anyone can work on experimental aircraft. Period. With the hangar door open or closed.
No donuts needed, but greatly appreciated!
no it isn't. preventative maintenance means trying to fix something before it breaks. Nothing more, nothing less.
FUN THREAD
disclaimer: I said that was the only foo-foo juice I could recommend - and then I get paragraphs of lecturing on the evils of 'everything' .
If you are having the symptoms of morning sickness, throw a can in and try it. If it helps you are money ahead.
I do agree that MMO is a problem looking for a solution.
Incidentally long ago in a galaxy far etc. etc. etc. I was the supervising engineer for an engine test lab where we had a half dozen engine/transmission dyno sets running a simulated city-country-mountain 1500 mile test loop pulling a 6000 pound trailer, running against water cooled prony brakes 24/7 (actually de prony, but only gear heads know that)
Every once in a while 4 or 5 of them would hit the bottom of the Pikes Peak Climb at roughly the same time. The sound of those old girls all winding up and singing out full throttle (detonating, rods rattling, clutches screaming) roaring exhaust through the roof top exhaust pipes (could be heard for 3 miles) always gave me goose bumps. We would put 15,000 miles on the engine/tranny in 14 to 17 days (depending on the exact loop being run, more city stop and go took more time).
The trannys usually did good. Most engines did not make more than 4 to 5 weeks before failing - either catastrophically (bent rods was a biggie) or just plain worn out, smoking, and needing an overhaul. The Olds Rocket 88 was the best of the GM engines in that era.
Lenkite was tried on two of the dyno lines and results after a year showed increased bearing and ring life that was statistically significant (students t-test) on those two lines compared to the other four. A version of Lenkite today is called AVBLEND.
It did not (nor was it expected to) change the rate of burnt valves, bent rods, broken cranks. etc.
For those amazed or nervous at 'dropping the valves' out of the head into the cylinder - been done from the very earliest days of airplane engines. It is not even difficult. Just needs a bit of show and tell from someone who knows how. My dad had me helping him do them when I was 12, or so.
And a plain A&P (my age showing) can do it and return the engine to service and the FSDO will not even blink - for those concerned about rules..
If the plane is Experimental, it's not "preventive maintenance" because "preventive maintenance" exists only under Part 43, which does not apply to Experimental aircraft.Unless, of course, the plane is experimental.
Thanks for the tip Mr. Winters!
So, I'll stand by my original statement:
......
Don't speak for me. When someone says "preventative maintenance" I associate it with part 43 and reaming valve guides is not included. A better title for this thread would have been "Reaming Valve Guides as Prophylactic Maintenance" to avoid the Part 43 association.
but when someone aske "hey, is it worth doing this to try and prevent a failure" it's seems pretty obvious he didn't start the thread to debate the FAR's
who is possibly going to connect the dots "somebody on the internet said this is how a given repair on an engine can be done, therefore it's legal for me to do it?"
Wrong again Kemosabi.
Well, since there is no "Part 41" I'm not sure to what you are referring.
If you are referring to Part 43, then look at 43.1 "Applicability"
So people are so ignorant they can't read the applicable regulations that apply to their aircraft??
Really???
Wrong again Kemosabi.
Im pretty sure most / all experimentals are maintained and "in full scope and detail" inspected per appendix "D" Part 43. So maintainence prevention ( or PM ) is a part of Part 43.
I'm pretty sure we talked this out before.
Someone cared enough to rag on me about my post (which was completely correct from the git-go) by incorrectly accusing me of being wrong in what I said.
Total gibberish. 14 CFR 43.1 clearly states that Part 43 is not applicable to Experimental aircraft, and "preventive maintenance" as clearly defined in 14 CFR 1.1 is covered only within the regulatory sections of Part 43 and Appendix A to that Part -- none of which apply to Experimental aircraft. So, unless you're inventing your own definition of "preventive maintenance" without regard to the FAR's, that term does not apply to Experimental aircraft, and the reaming of valve guides by a non-A&P owner/pilot is not "preventive maintenance".Wrong again Kemosabi.
Im pretty sure most / all experimentals are maintained and "in full scope and detail" inspected per appendix "D" Part 43. So maintainence prevention ( or PM ) is a part of Part 43.
I'm pretty sure we talked this out before.
Well, the OP did ask the question, so you must think the OP is "so ignorant they can't read the applicable regulations that apply to their aircraft". Personally, I would not have insulted the OP that way, but instead chose to answer the question as asked with a factual answer.So people are so ignorant they can't read the applicable regulations that apply to their aircraft??
Really???
You certainly can, but if you want anyone else to understand what you're talking about, you'll stick to the ones everyone else uses, which in this case, is the one in the regulations. Otherwise, nobody can understand what you're saying or what you're asking.