what happens

Tom-D said:
Yeah, OK, it moves and could cause this stumble. it's an easy check..pump the throttle,, see what comes out the bottom.
Click to expand...
And if you do your test and less fuel than we saw in your video comes out and you adjust the throw and get more fuel, it's guaranteed to be fixed?
 
GlennAB1 said:
And if you do your test and less fuel than we saw in your video comes out and you adjust the throw and get more fuel, it's guaranteed to be fixed?
Click to expand...
No... it may have been too rich to start with.
 
4 or 5 other mechanics have looked at it already. You think they haven't tried the easy stuff?

I can't believe people fly with an engine stumble on accel.
 
Tom-D said:
Trouble shoot, Trouble shoot, repair, test, try again.
Click to expand...

Troubleshoot -> What you do to try and diagnose a problem
Trouble shoot -> What you do after you've given up and just want to blow the damn thing to pieces
 
deonb said:
Troubleshoot -> What you do to try and diagnose a problem
Trouble shoot -> What you do after you've given up and just want to blow the damn thing to pieces
Click to expand...
First step.. find some one who is smarter than a carburetor.
 
To me, a "proper" overhaul would follow the FAA definition. Not what I have seen at times in the field.

To effectively troubleshoot this is next to impossible over the net. Way too many variables.
 
JAWS said:
To me, a "proper" overhaul would follow the FAA definition. Not what I have seen at times in the field.

To effectively troubleshoot this is next to impossible over the net. Way too many variables.
Click to expand...
Here is the rule,,

3.2 Records of overhaul and rebuilding.
(a) No person may describe in any required maintenance entry or form an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part as being overhauled unless—

(1) Using methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, it has been disassembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired as necessary, and reassembled; and

(2) It has been tested in accordance with approved standards and technical data, or in accordance with current standards and technical data acceptable to the Administrator, which have been developed and documented by the holder of the type certificate, supplemental type certificate, or a material, part, process, or appliance approval under part 21 of this chapter.

Now the question.. How are you going to do that in the field, when a flow bench is required ?
 
That is my point, Tom.
 
Airplane carbs are simple as ****. That said there is no such thing as setting up a carb one way and getting the result you want on two different engine installations. I don't care who you are, faa approved or not, that's simply not how carbs work.

It's very annoying to me that most mechanics just default to sending it out then bolting it back on. You're never going to have a perfectly tuned setup that way. On any engine. Period. Aviation mechanics are the only folks in the engine world that pretend that to be true.

I'd much rather sort out a carb issue on an airplane (which would take no time at all) then have to tune a set of carbs on a Jap engine. By far more complicated...

So to sum it up -- I don't consider someone a legit mechanic if they just send the damn thing out then bolt it back on and charge the owner. A real mechanic understands how carbs work and adjust it appropriately for that engine installation. Airplane, motorcycle, jet ski, chainsaw, or lawn mower. That's how it's done.
 
I know for a fact my local Honda motorcycle dealership has "their guy" that works on carburetors off site, and I'm sure the local Ford would be similar when it comes to my '66 Mustang.

Yep, most aircraft mechanics are parts changers, most don't have the facilities required, nor the time, for repair or overhaul of every type component.
 
The Float Valve and Seat Test has some pretty exact requirements, 0.4 psi, no +- tolerance, that will require a regulator and certified gauge, plus all the tooling required and recommended, most mechanics are's going to mess with it.
 
GlennAB1 said:
The Float Valve and Seat Test has some pretty exact requirements, 0.4 psi, no +- tolerance, that will require a regulator and certified gauge, plus all the tooling required and recommended, most mechanics are's going to mess with it.
Click to expand...
Naaaw,, we just disassemble clean and repair as required.
If you don't call it overhauled, it doesn't have to be.
 
You think it's legal to pick and choose what you want to accomplish or not in a component overhaul procedure just because you don't call it an overhaul, ignoring the note on page 5 "Failure to follow these instructions may result in adverse carburator performance and engine operation". I bet the FAA would disagree with you.
 
Last edited:
GlennAB1 said:
You think it's legal to pick and choose what you want to accomplish or not in a component overhaul procedure just because you don't call it an overhaul, ignoring the note on page 5 "Failure to follow these instructions may result in adverse carburator performance and engine operation". I bet the FAA would disagree with you.
Click to expand...

Again you made the assumption a repair is an overhaul.
The FAA allows we A&Ps to do and record repairs.
You should come out into the real world and see what is done.
 
Something that people may forget is the liability in aviation. Carb quits in your car, you pull off to the side of the road and deal with it - usually not a stressful event. Carb quits in your 150 at 300 feet during climb out is a bit different. I tend to work on the conservative side of things, but to each their own. :)
 
JAWS said:
Something that people may forget is the liability in aviation. Carb quits in your car, you pull off to the side of the road and deal with it - usually not a stressful event. Carb quits in your 150 at 300 feet during climb out is a bit different. I tend to work on the conservative side of things, but to each their own. :)
Click to expand...
A&Ps except the liability of every thing they do. If you can't do that don't work on aircraft.
 
Just because it is legal doesn't make it wise.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Again you made the assumption a repair is an overhaul.
The FAA allows we A&Ps to do and record repairs.
You should come out into the real world and see what is done.
Click to expand...
No assumption, call it what you want, you're following the overhaul manual, Pg 4 - Models MA 3A, MA 3PA, MA 3SPA, and MA 4SPA are very similar and this overhaul section will apply to all. Does that manual authorize you to pick and choose what you want to do? It actually warns against not following it.
 
GlennAB1 said:
No assumption, call it what you want, you're following the overhaul manual, Pg 4 - Models MA 3A, MA 3PA, MA 3SPA, and MA 4SPA are very similar and this overhaul section will apply to all. Does that manual authorize you to pick and choose what you want to do? It actually warns against not following it.
Click to expand...

this post demonstrates you do not understand FAR 43.
You should come out of the big FBO drop your job cards and repair customers aircraft
 
Tom-D said:
this post demonstrates you do not understand FAR 43.
You should come out of the big FBO drop your job cards and repair customers aircraft
Click to expand...
You must not even know what an FBO is.

How about you provide your FAR 43 reference that allows you to disregard manufacturers manuals.
 
Last edited:
GlennAB1 said:
You must not even know what an FBO is.

How about you provide your FAR 43 reference that allows you to disregard manufacturers manuals.
Click to expand...
Better yet, you show where any FAR says we must use the manufacturer's overhaul manuals.
When you don't know FAR 43 well enough to state the paragraph I requested simply proves my statement.
 
And the ****ing contest continues, lol!
 
Tom-D said:
Better yet, you show where any FAR says we must use the manufacturer's overhaul manuals.
When you don't know FAR 43 well enough to state the paragraph I requested simply proves my statement.
Click to expand...

I was waiting for you to write something stupid again.

43.13 Performance rules (general).
(a) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in §43.16. He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industry practices. If special equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the Administrator.

I think that covers it quite satisfactorily.
 
Last edited:
duty_calls.png
 
GlennAB1 said:
I was waiting for you to write something stupid again.

43.13 Performance rules (general).
(a) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in §43.16. He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industry practices. If special equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the Administrator.

I think that covers it quite satisfactorily.
Click to expand...
I knew you'd get it wrong again..

43.9 Content, form, and disposition of maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration records (except inspections performed in accordance with part 91, part 125, §135.411(a)(1), and §135.419 of this chapter).
(a) Maintenance record entries. Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, each person who maintains, performs preventive maintenance, rebuilds, or alters an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:

(1) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of work performed.

(2) The date of completion of the work performed.

(3) The name of the person performing the work if other than the person specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.

(4) If the work performed on the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part has been performed satisfactorily, the signature, certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving the work. The signature constitutes the approval for return to service only for the work performed.

Nowhere does your quote require the Manufacturer's manuals to be complied with, it does give other means accceptabe to the administrator.
 
When you comply with the ADs on these carb, did you do it IAW the AD or the MM?
 
Tom-D said:
Nowhere does your quote require the Manufacturer's manuals to be complied with, it does give other means accceptabe to the administrator.
Click to expand...

Really?

GlennAB1 said:
43.13 Performance rules (general).
(a) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in §43.16. He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industry practices. If special equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the Administrator.
Click to expand...

The last sentence alone requires the mechanic to follow the manufacturer's manual.

You really think the FAA would find a mechanic "winging it" acceptable when there's a manufacturers manual that covers what he's doing?
 
Glen, Have you ever really seen a primer pump?

Show me the manufacturer's MM that directs the how to replace the "O" rings
 

Attachments

  • 20170304_111259.jpg
    20170304_111259.jpg
    260 KB · Views: 16
GlennAB1 said:
Really?



The last sentence alone requires the mechanic to follow the manufacturer's manual.

You really think the FAA would find a mechanic "winging it" acceptable when there's a manufacturers manual that covers what he's doing?
Click to expand...
If that were true, why did they dd the rest of the statement. There are many ways to comply other than the manufacturer's MM>
 
GlennAB1 said:
Really?



The last sentence alone requires the mechanic to follow the manufacturer's manual.

You really think the FAA would find a mechanic "winging it" acceptable when there's a manufacturers manual that covers what he's doing?
Click to expand...
Show me why you believe that the MM is the only satisfactory method of compliance? When you complied with the ADs on these carbs did you do it by the AD instructions or the MM ?
 
Folks, Glen must have forgotten that they teach General shop practices in
A&P school. and their curriculum is approved by the Administrator. :)
 
Those of you that still want Tom to work on your carburetor after reading through that service manual, knowing he's going to just use general shop practices, need your head examined.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
When you complied with the ADs on these carbs did you do it by the AD instructions or the MM ?
Click to expand...
If the AD refers to the MM, yes, but you obviously didn't/wouldn't.

ADs almost always refer to Service Bulletins which often refer to manuals.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top