Foolish Buyer Tricks

According to Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_51,
the Parker pen company introduced their model 51 in 1941.

The article says,
quote

The pen's resemblance to the sleek fuselage of the P-51 Mustang, a fighter
plane used extensively during the war, had no bearing on its name; but
Parker took advantage of the coincidence by comparing the pen and the plane
in its advertising. Additionally, a pilot who is suspected of falsifying
flight records in his logbook in order to overstate his actual experience is
said to have logged "P-51 hours," relying on the ambiguity of the term
"P-51" to avoid directly confronting the suspect.

/quote

That's the story I've heard.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
btw, for us old farts, that is known as a "P51 Annual"...

'Splain, please?

Jay Honeck wrote:
The foolish buyer trick I've seen more often than others is the "It comes
with a fresh annual, I don't need a pre-purchase inspection." approach to
airplane buying.

Anyone who accepts this is crazy.


Although I always recommend an independent prepurchase inspection to
prospective buyers, I bought my last airplane with a "fresh annual". It
turned out that the plane was annualed by a mechanic that I knew and trusted,
who would have been the only guy in the area I would have hired for the
prepurchase inspection. He gave me access to the full shop work order (i.e.
all of the details of the work done) and pointed out things he thought might
need attention in the future.

Buying a plane that has had a fresh annual from someone I don't know would
definitely not happen.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200709/1

The pen's resemblance to the sleek fuselage of the P-51 Mustang, a fighter
plane used extensively during the war, had no bearing on its name; but
Parker took advantage of the coincidence by comparing the pen and the plane
in its advertising. Additionally, a pilot who is suspected of falsifying
flight records in his logbook in order to overstate his actual experience is
said to have logged "P-51 hours," relying on the ambiguity of the term
"P-51" to avoid directly confronting the suspect.

/quote

That's the story I've heard.

Ha! Makes a lot of sense. Thanks for sharing it...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Ah. We always call it schaeffer time.

"Jon Woellhaf" wrote in message
. ..
According to Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_51,
the Parker pen company introduced their model 51 in 1941.

The article says,
quote

The pen's resemblance to the sleek fuselage of the P-51 Mustang, a fighter
plane used extensively during the war, had no bearing on its name; but
Parker took advantage of the coincidence by comparing the pen and the
plane in its advertising. Additionally, a pilot who is suspected of
falsifying flight records in his logbook in order to overstate his actual
experience is said to have logged "P-51 hours," relying on the ambiguity
of the term "P-51" to avoid directly confronting the suspect.

/quote

That's the story I've heard.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
btw, for us old farts, that is known as a "P51 Annual"...

'Splain, please?

On Sep 12, 9:53 pm, Jay Honeck wrote:
The foolish buyer trick I've seen more often than others is the "It comes
with a fresh annual, I don't need a pre-purchase inspection." approach to
airplane buying.
Anyone who accepts this is crazy.

In other words, the fact that an aircraft passed an annual inspection
means absolutely nothing. BTW - I agree with you. It does mean
nothing.

Just a few months ago, someone I know bought a Cherokee 180. It just
went through annual. I have a friend who is an A&P/IA who has been a
mechanic for decades, but never finished 8th grade. Unsurprisingly,
he is very good at swinging wrenches but barely made it through the
A&P and IA written exams and is not so good at paperwork. As a
result, I wind up doing his paperwork (AD searches, entries, etc.) and
he winds up doing a lot of work on my airplane. Works out for
everyone, and also lets me see what kind of crap is flying out there,
and how badly some A&P's/IA's are screwing their customers.

One would expect, given a brief look at the paperwork, that the AD's
were all up to date. Instead of the (now thankfully rare) "All AD's C/
W" entry, there was a complete printout made with one of the
commercial software packages, done on the computer. Problem with
computers is this - garbage in, garbage out.

The equipment list showed the airplane had an Edo-Aire transponder.
The AD list showed that the AD on the KT-76A transponder was complied
with. The plane actually had a Narco AT-150 transponder. There's an
AD on that one, and it was never checked.

There was an AD on an oxygen bottle that the IA claimed he complied
with by refilling the bottle. Sounds good - this is the required
action - only there was no oxygen bottle, and never had been.

An AD on the air filter was shown to have been complied with by
replacement of the filter element and terminated. Only problem -
element replacement was not a terminating action, and in any case the
AD didn't apply to installations on that model of engine.

It was like that all down the line. Unnecessary work done, work
claimed that could not possibly have been done, and important things
that should have been checked left unchecked. That's really pretty
normal for the planes out there.

Another of the aircraft still on the field wouldn't pass a run-up. Why? It
had been filled with autofuel some time back, not flown or run for a while,
and the fuel system was badly gummed up. Oh, by the way, there is no
autofuel STC for this airplane. Again, this airplane had a fresh annual.

How long was "a while"? Unleaded mogas won't "gum up" anything for
years -- unless, of course, the mogas had ethanol in it. Then it
will supposedly start attacking rubber seals.

Not true. Leave unleaded mogas in your lawnmower for a year, and it
likely won't start. Autogas lacks the stabilizer package found in
avgas. No big deal if you fly regularly, but a real issue if you
don't. Of course you could just add Stabil to the autogas, and that
would work - but I doubt that's covered by STC. Not that anyone would
know.

How does an A&P sign off an annual inspection on a plane that won't
pass a run-up test?

It takes an IA to sign off an annual - and he can do so without ever
seeing it run. That's because a lot of the things that normally get
done at annual are not part of the annual inspection, and can be done
by an A&P without the IA or even by the owner.

Realize that if you have a plain vanilla spam can, you can legally do
about 90% of the work required for a legal annual and routine
service. It works like this:

Make an appointment with your friendly IA for the afternoon, and that
morning fly the plane for an hour or so (to get the cylinders nice and
warm), then land. If you have the Bendix magneto switch, check to
make sure you can use it to shut off the engine (it's an AD, but
you're allowed to do it yourself) before you park it. Wash the plane
(not a serious job, just enough to inspect). Put it on jacks, pull
off the wheel pants (if any), wheels, and all inspection covers.
Service the struts with air (nitrogen if you have it, but I doubt it
makes a difference) and fluid (5606). Top off the brake reservoir
(5606 again). If your battery can be serviced with acid and/or water,
service it - otherwise just put the charger on it. Or replace it.
Change your ELT battery if it needs it. Pull out the seats and the
floor inspection panels. Lube all the pulleys, replace any missing
safety wire or cotter keys. Clean everything up, spray some Corrosion-
X in there. Pull off the engine cowls, wash down the engine. Pull out
the plugs, clean, gap, reinstall the bottom ones. Change the oil (and
filter if present). Now wait for your IA, and meanwhile log what you
did (don't forget to make the AD entry if your Bendix switch is
covered). You haven't overstepped your authority as pilot-owner -
everything I noted is something the owner is allowed to do. It leaves
precious little for the IA to do.

When he shows up, I doubt he will care about starting the engine. He
will probably just check compressions and magneto timing, inspect the
cables, pulleys, and other moving parts with flashlight and mirror,
check whatever other things the type requires (it's usually only a few
things, generally by AD) and call it good. He doesn't need to see the
engine run. You can put it all back together later all by yourself.

It's all legal - but just because an engine passes the compression
check and magneto timing check, that does not mean it will run.

Michael

"Michael" wrote some great advice
snipped

Just finished everything you mentioned plus
removed/stripped/painted/reassembled/relabeled wheels, mounted new tires
with new tubes, new bearings/cups, new seals, and all new hardware. Brakes
were done a year ago and still good. Changed 2 cylinders and a prop
governor under the oversight of my A&P. Logged over 130 hours (ok I'm slow)
of wrenching before and after our annual inspection, which only took our IA
6 hours. BTW, those computerized printouts are great for a new owner to
research each and every AD. Buy a copy of the manufacturers SB/SL's on CD
and cross reference each SB/SL that may be referenced in the AD. Then go
through your log books to learn exactly what AD's have been complied with
and use the SB/SL's to learn how the compliance was accomplished. Note the
log book page and date as a reference to save your IA some of his time and
some of your $.

One belly pan to reinstall and then an ops check and the Aztec will be RTS.

Jim

How long was "a while"? Unleaded mogas won't "gum up" anything for
years -- unless, of course, the mogas had ethanol in it. Then it
will supposedly start attacking rubber seals.

Not true. Leave unleaded mogas in your lawnmower for a year, and it
likely won't start. Autogas lacks the stabilizer package found in
avgas.

You know, I've heard that ever since I started using mogas in my
planes, but I've never seen a cite, nor have I *ever* noticed a
problem with unleaded gasoline in *any* of my lawn mowers, leaf
blowers, or snow blowers.

I put 'em away in the spring/winter, and start 'em up the following
winter/summer -- and away we go. Same with my Honda Goldwing -- I top
it off, and it just sits till next year. No troubles.

Can anyone point me to anything that proves (or disproves) the "fact"
that unleaded mogas deteriorates faster than avgas?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

You know, I've heard that ever since I started using mogas in my
planes, but I've never seen a cite, nor have I *ever* noticed a
problem with unleaded gasoline in *any* of my lawn mowers, leaf
blowers, or snow blowers.

I put 'em away in the spring/winter, and start 'em up the following
winter/summer -- and away we go. Same with my Honda Goldwing -- I top
it off, and it just sits till next year. No troubles.

My experience as well.

Last spring I got my chainsaw down from the garage
attic. It had been *at least* 10 years since I
had started it. Topped up the tank and it ran fine.

I used to run the gas out of the carb on my
lawnmower in the fall. Stopped doing it and
it didn't make any difference.

("Jim Burns" wrote)
Logged over 130 hours (ok I'm slow) of wrenching before and after our
annual inspection...


Co-owner meeting:
"Next item on the agenda, who's turn is it to wash the plane - Jim?"

Jim:
"Hehehehe-hahahaha. Good one...! You guys crack me up."


Montblack

whose