Are You Flying a "Beater?"

In article ,
"Bill Denton" wrote:

There is a generally accepted distance between Earth and the moon (roughly a
quarter of a million miles). This would generally be described as a "fact".
But no one has ever taken a ruler and actually measured that distance.


One of the Apollo missions left a special prism like mirror set up on
the moon. They then bounced a laser off of it from Earth and were able
to measure the distance with extreme accuracy ( have to look it up but
memory says within a millimeter or so) ... at least the distance at that
particular moment in time (not a perfect circular orbit).


Edward

And you are perfectly making my point...

The only way we could be assured of the laser's accuracy would be to first
measure it with some sort of ruler, then compare the laser with the ruler
measurement. This has not yet been done.

In the US, we have an agency called something like the National Bureau Of
Standards. It's been years, so forgive any minor errors, but at that bureau
they have such things as a metal bar exactly one foot long, a metal weight
that weighs exactly one pound, and similar objects, These objects are made
of various metals and alloys to as best as possible minimize the effects of
expansion and contraction and similar effects.

These are the items that define the various weights and measures we use in
our country; other objects are compared to these to ensure their accuracy.

Now let's look at our laser device...

Something like a laser measuring device (for the purposes we are discussing
here) will be used to measure the distance to something that has been placed
one mile away by a ruler (or similar device). Then it will be used to
measure the distance to something that has been placed ten miles away by a
ruler (or similar device). And this might continue until the curvature of
the earth prohibits additional measurements.

So let's loop back to the original discussion, which had to do with facts
versus consensus.

Our laser measuring device will be examined by various scientists, the
theory behind it will be scrutinized, the testing methodology and results
will be examined, and eventually the scientists will come to a CONSENSUS
that this laser device can accurately measure 250,000 miles. And that's
fine, it probably will be more accurate than previous measurements. But you
will notice that every time a new measurement method comes into play the
distance changes.

But with our metal bar from the NBS, no consensus as to it's accuracy is
required. As it defines the measure, it is defacto correct.






"Edward Todd" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Bill Denton" wrote:

There is a generally accepted distance between Earth and the moon
(roughly a
quarter of a million miles). This would generally be described as a
"fact".
But no one has ever taken a ruler and actually measured that distance.


One of the Apollo missions left a special prism like mirror set up on
the moon. They then bounced a laser off of it from Earth and were able
to measure the distance with extreme accuracy ( have to look it up but
memory says within a millimeter or so) ... at least the distance at that
particular moment in time (not a perfect circular orbit).


Edward

In article ,
Edward Todd wrote:

What is the deal with TBO? What do the regs say about it? I hear of
people running past it ... so is it not a legal issue? I wouldn't do it
for safety reasons ... but is it legal to run a 2000hour TBO engine up
to 5000 hours as long as it still passes the annual?


TBO is a reference established by the manufacturer for certification.
If you run an engine the way the factory did it, you will get the wear
as measured by the manufacturer.
In reality, there are many different ways to operate and engine. These
many different methods of operation will result in different wear
patterns. Some methods will allow you to go beyond TBO, others will
significantly reduce your TBO.
ie... Lycoming AEIO-540 in aerobatic service have a TBO of 1200 hours.
In the real world of aerobatic use, 600-700 is normal. When you go from
full throttle to idle with great rapidity in a 15 minute practice or
competition sequence, you are not operating the engine the same way the
factory did to establish the TBO.
Take that same engine and run it in a Cherokee Six, Cessna 210, or
Beech Bonanza, baby it, and you will go most likely go well beyond 1200
hours.

Jay Honeck wrote:

I must admit that their assessment matches my own observations. Some of the
planes I see regularly flying are almost scary -- and some of the planes
I've seen in hangars and on ramps I can only pray never take flight under
their own power.

How do you know anything about their mechanical condition? Outside of my own aircraft
and two planes that have not had air in the tires for years, I know absolutely zilch
about what's been done to any aircraft at Old Bridge. I'd bet you don't know much
more about any at Iowa City. So far, it sounds like you're assuming that lousy paint
means lousy mechanicals as well. That's not a good assumption.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

How do you know anything about their mechanical condition? Outside of my
own aircraft
and two planes that have not had air in the tires for years, I know
absolutely zilch
about what's been done to any aircraft at Old Bridge. I'd bet you don't
know much
more about any at Iowa City. So far, it sounds like you're assuming that
lousy paint
means lousy mechanicals as well. That's not a good assumption.

Well, I'm fairly well plugged into the pilot community here, and I can tell
you which hangar doors open weekly, monthly, or not at all.

Of course, the latter type can *look* pristine, but are probably junk after
months (years?) of inactivity. Thus, they are "pretty beaters"...

You're right -- you can't always judge a book by its cover.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 02:32:41 +0000, Jay Honeck wrote:

You're right -- you can't always judge a book by its cover.

That's true, my plane is in good shape except for the paint on it which
looks poor. But it's in a hangar and doesn't sit outside and isn't
getting worse.

I wanted a plane in good shape that had not been repainted so that if and
when I wanted to paint it I would know it was done right and not just a
scuff and shoot job so many get.

"Matthew P. Cummings" wrote in message
news
just a
scuff and shoot job so many get.


Matt,
This is a major point. Many of these "scuff and shoots" go without
rebalancing the control surfaces. Not a good thing at all.

Marty