air conditioning- nice, required, or silly?

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 13:10:44 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

The problem is that many northeast airports are very busy and have long
taxi times. I've spent 30 minutes on the taxiway at Philly, Washington
National (pre 9/11 obviously), and Boston. On a 95 F day, this is
extremely unpleasant, even with the windows open (one nice 182 advantage).

Philly, Wash, Boston? No need to go there!

I've spent 30 minutes on the ground at Martha's Vineyard, New Bedford,
and Danbury.

Yeah the TO delays are a problem-trapped in a swealtering cockpit is
no fun.

Thanks for all the opinions.

Andy

wrote in message
ups.com...
Yeah the TO delays are a problem-trapped in a swealtering cockpit is
no fun.

Thanks for all the opinions.

What kind of airplane are you looking to put A/C in? (Cher 260?)

New, or retro-fit?

Even if you need it, your equipment _might_ not be able to handle it.

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 13:10:44 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

The problem is that many northeast airports are very busy and have long
taxi times. I've spent 30 minutes on the taxiway at Philly, Washington
National (pre 9/11 obviously), and Boston. On a 95 F day, this is
extremely unpleasant, even with the windows open (one nice 182 advantage).

Philly, Wash, Boston? No need to go there!

I've spent 30 minutes on the ground at Martha's Vineyard, New Bedford,
and Danbury.

Try 20 minutes waiting on the ground in Altus, OK :~(

Matt Barrow wrote:
"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 13:10:44 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:
The problem is that many northeast airports are very busy and have long
taxi times. I've spent 30 minutes on the taxiway at Philly, Washington
National (pre 9/11 obviously), and Boston. On a 95 F day, this is
extremely unpleasant, even with the windows open (one nice 182 advantage).
Philly, Wash, Boston? No need to go there!

I've spent 30 minutes on the ground at Martha's Vineyard, New Bedford,
and Danbury.

Try 20 minutes waiting on the ground in Altus, OK :~(



I'm sure that is no fun. The worst I had was about 20 minutes at
Detroit several years ago in the midst of one of their worst heat waves
ever. It was 102 according to the radio station, but on the ramp my OAT
was nearly pegged. And it was humid to boot. It wasn't even all that
cool at 7,000 on the way home! I'd have given up a lot of useful load
for AC that day...

Matt

B A R R Y wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 13:10:44 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:
The problem is that many northeast airports are very busy and have long
taxi times. I've spent 30 minutes on the taxiway at Philly, Washington
National (pre 9/11 obviously), and Boston. On a 95 F day, this is
extremely unpleasant, even with the windows open (one nice 182 advantage).

Philly, Wash, Boston? No need to go there!

I've spent 30 minutes on the ground at Martha's Vineyard, New Bedford,
and Danbury.

Probably waiting on a slot from ZBW! :-)

Matt

Anybody have any experience with air conditioning in their plane-Nice
to have? Silly accessory? Don't leave home without it? 80% Summer
flying in Northeast.


Thanks for your opinion.

Andy

As others have stated, you cannot use if for takeoff. So, you use it on
the ground and then turn it on again in the climb. 4 minutes into the
climb, you are usually into cooler air anyway and shut it off.

Google A/C and see the persistent problems with these units.

They are R-12 systems in most planes. If you think it is expensive to
get a car charged with R-12, wait till you see what it will cost to get
an A&P to do it - if you can find one. Likely you will have to talk an
auto tech into bringing his equipment out to the airport for the A&P to
watch him charge the system. Then, you get to pay 2 folks for one
operation. R-134? Many techs will not do a conversion because they can
screw up some systems irreparably. Even though many have converted
Pipers, the local auto tech has no experience and likely will not want
to "experiment" with a very expensive airplane.

The hoses are now 20-30+ years old. They leaked like crazy when new and
have not gotten any better with age. If an auto tech charges the plane,
they will likely give you the speech about how they are required to
investigate why the system needed a charge and fix it. Or, they may
refuse to charge it at all UNTIL the leak is found and fixed.

As others have said, they rob you of 70 odd pounds in the Pipers. For a
140 that is 10% of its useful load and precludes any thoughts of a third
person.

The alternator belts and pulleys are the biggest pain. After 1000 hours,
the pulleys wear due to the high tension required on the skinny
alternator belt. Once worn, you can throw belts in as little as 2 hours.
Ironically, the compressor belt usually never breaks. Which would you
choose to go South unpredictably?

We removed ours and got back 43 pounds. We left the drop door and
condenser in because of the hassle of removing it. The cost to "convert"
back to stock can be staggering and the parts are NOT easy to identify
and find.

Opinions vary, but in many Midwest/Northern parts of the country, it is
not worth the hassle.

Good Luck,
Mike

On Jul 8, 6:41 am, Mike Spera wrote:
They are R-12 systems in most planes...R-134? Many techs will not do a conversion because they can
screw up some systems irreparably. Even though many have converted
Pipers, the local auto tech has no experience and likely will not want
to "experiment" with a very expensive airplane...
Mike

I can't imagine that converting an R-12 system to R-134 wouldn't
require an STC.

150flivver wrote:
On Jul 8, 6:41 am, Mike Spera wrote:

They are R-12 systems in most planes...R-134? Many techs will not do a conversion because they can
screw up some systems irreparably. Even though many have converted
Pipers, the local auto tech has no experience and likely will not want
to "experiment" with a very expensive airplane...

Mike

I can't imagine that converting an R-12 system to R-134 wouldn't
require an STC.

I was not heading in that direction. My thought was that some R-12
systems contained some funky oil that turned to glue when R-134 oil hit
it. Hence, some auto guys will not do a "conversion" and risk getting
into a huge beef if the system gets all gummed up.

I would imagine that those same auto wrenches would also balk at going
to the local airport to "try out" converting a Piper from 12 to 134.

I would never suggest that a conversion would require and STC. But, some
FAA critter might.

Good Luck,
Mike

I don't know if it is an stc thing, but there are conversions available.
It has always been far cheaper to stick with r12 in my seneca. I seem
to remembe being told is was about 6k to convert.

John




150flivver wrote:

On Jul 8, 6:41 am, Mike Spera wrote:

They are R-12 systems in most planes...R-134? Many techs will not do a conversion because they can
screw up some systems irreparably. Even though many have converted
Pipers, the local auto tech has no experience and likely will not want
to "experiment" with a very expensive airplane...

Mike

I can't imagine that converting an R-12 system to R-134 wouldn't
require an STC.