C-150 problems

Tom-D said:
The airbox was spot welded to hold every thing in place, then brazed by the manufacturer.
Click to expand...

Now it is spot welded and brazed. I bet those spot welds do more than just hold things in place for brazing!
 
JAWS said:
Now it is spot welded and brazed. I bet those spot welds do more than just hold things in place for brazing!
Click to expand...
You can bet on what ever you like, the answer to your other question is, ( 19-3 ) look it up it gives all the info you need.
 
Tom-D said:
What's really amazing to me is, so many here didn't even recognize brass when they saw it, yet know every thing there is to know about repairing an airbox that was made using it.
Click to expand...
One or two people made that mistake, therefore everyone on the thread thinks that. Sometimes your application of logic astounds me.
 
Tom-D said:
You can bet on what ever you like, the answer to your other question is, ( 19-3 ) look it up it gives all the info you need.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll bite. What is 19-3?
 
I build bicycle frames as a hobby using 4130 chromium molybdenum (chromoly) tubing, and join the frame tubes using either investment cast steel lugs or fillet brazing. For thin walled chromoly tubing (wall thickness typically ~0.5mm) used in bicycles, brazing with the appropriate flux is the preferred joining method because the heat required is significantly lower than for welding which compromises the strength of the steel in the HAZ (heat affected zone), and properly done either lugged or fillet brazed joins are as strong as the tubing itself.

Since the OEM join was brazed, it should not be repaired by welding (AC 43.13-1B 4-77 states NOTE: Never weld over a previously brazed joint.).

I would be fine with Tom's repair.
 
Stan Cooper said:
I build bicycle frames as a hobby using 4130 chromium molybdenum (chromoly) tubing, and join the frame tubes using either investment cast steel lugs or fillet brazing. For thin walled chromoly tubing (wall thickness typically ~0.5mm) used in bicycles, brazing with the appropriate flux is the preferred joining method because the heat required is significantly lower than for welding which compromises the strength of the steel in the HAZ (heat affected zone), and properly done either lugged or fillet brazed joins are as strong as the tubing itself.

Since the OEM join was brazed, it should not be repaired by welding (AC 43.13-1B 4-77 states NOTE: Never weld over a previously brazed joint.).

I would be fine with Tom's repair.
Click to expand...
A useful post that provided meaningful information even to me, who knows little about metal work. (As opposed to riddles, innuendos, and inside jokes with no knowledge exchange)
 
Stan Cooper said:
I build bicycle frames as a hobby using 4130 chromium molybdenum (chromoly) tubing, and join the frame tubes using either investment cast steel lugs or fillet brazing. For thin walled chromoly tubing (wall thickness typically ~0.5mm) used in bicycles, brazing with the appropriate flux is the preferred joining method because the heat required is significantly lower than for welding which compromises the strength of the steel in the HAZ (heat affected zone), and properly done either lugged or fillet brazed joins are as strong as the tubing itself.

Since the OEM join was brazed, it should not be repaired by welding (AC 43.13-1B 4-77 states NOTE: Never weld over a previously brazed joint.).

I would be fine with Tom's repair.
Click to expand...

The parent material is beat and cracked to snot. Globbing more brass on top is not a structurally sound repair, in my opinion. But as I stated before, it is not my aircraft or signature on the dotted line.
 
JAWS said:
The parent material is beat and cracked to snot. Globbing more brass on top is not a structurally sound repair, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Who asked for your opinion?
 
Salty said:
Making a point, not being rude - Who asked for your original post?
Click to expand...
No one, but it certainly got 52 posts,
Would you rather I kept things like this secret?
 
Tom-D said:
No one, but it certainly got 52 posts,
Would you rather I kept things like this secret?
Click to expand...
And, swing and a miss on getting the point.
 
I took Tom's OP as simply pointing out a common problem with the C-150 O-200 air box cracking, and recommending C-150 owners check for cracking. He described his fix for the problem.

Why would anyone think that post in the Maintenance Bay is somehow inappropriate?
 
Stan Cooper said:
I took Tom's OP as simply pointing out a common problem with the C-150 O-200 air box cracking, and recommending C-150 owners check for cracking. He described his fix for the problem.

Why would anyone think that post in the Maintenance Bay is somehow inappropriate?
Click to expand...
Why would anyone think that someone posting their opinion of that post on a public forum is somehow inappropriate? That is the point I'm making.
 
Tom-D said:
The FIX.
Click to expand...

It is certainly "a" fix. o_O

If you come on to a public forum with pictures of questionable work, be prepared for other opinions.
 
Tom-D said:
You can bet on what ever you like, the answer to your other question is, ( 19-3 ) look it up it gives all the info you need.
Click to expand...
Tom-D said:
Look it up. Why should I do your home work just to add to your thread creep?
Click to expand...
Tom- you are the one who brought up whatever 19-3 is supposed to be. Either answer the question, or don't inject it into the conversation.
 
JAWS said:
It is certainly "a" fix. o_O

If you come on to a public forum with pictures of questionable work, be prepared for other opinions.
Click to expand...
Questionable by who? What qualification do you have to question anyone's work. Who are you to decide what is good and what is not?

It's easy to hid behind you cute little moniker and snipe others, but until you can show who you are and are able to prove your qualification, your credibility is zero.
 
Tom-D said:
Questionable by who? What qualification do you have to question anyone's work. Who are you to decide what is good and what is not?

It's easy to hid behind you cute little moniker and snipe others, but until you can show who you are and are able to prove your qualification, your credibility is zero.
Click to expand...
He probably has the same qualifications you do.
 
Tom-D said:
Questionable by who? What qualification do you have to question anyone's work. Who are you to decide what is good and what is not?

It's easy to hid behind you cute little moniker and snipe others, but until you can show who you are and are able to prove your qualification, your credibility is zero.
Click to expand...
Appeal to authority logical fallacy. His qualifications do not factor into whether his observations are valid or not.
 
Tom-D said:
Questionable by who? What qualification do you have to question anyone's work. Who are you to decide what is good and what is not?

It's easy to hid behind you cute little moniker and snipe others, but until you can show who you are and are able to prove your qualification, your credibility is zero.
Click to expand...

Qualifications? I can read! I am a licenced AME in Canada. I fix airplanes almost every day. I also own an airplane or two.
Sniping? Not yet!
Credibility? LMAO! Have you read your post history?

Tom should have stopped at showing broken air boxes, which is actually a positive thing to do. When he started to "educate" us is when I felt I could offer an alternative POV based on good industry practices. Oh well, not my plane, not my licence. :)
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Tom- you are the one who brought up whatever 19-3 is supposed to be. Either answer the question, or don't inject it into the conversation.
Click to expand...

He won't. Not his style! :cool:
 
All of this is sooo much like jr. High.
You guys have so much knowlege, why the ****ing matches?
 
5QK said:
All of this is sooo much like jr. High.
You guys have so much knowlege, why the ****ing matches?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it’s a good way to discourage people from starting threads, taking time to snap pics and post them, and have a conversation where everyone learns. Regardless of whether folks think Tom is right or wrong (or knows he is), there’s a right way and wrong way to treat someone. I want to gain something from POA, and the surest way to make sure I won’t is by turning an interesting topic into whatever happened here. Lots of good psychology PhD stuff going on here. F*****g pilots....
 
We pilots for the most part don't disparage each other when discussing different methods of doing things flying related, yet it seems that a lot of A&P's want to jump allover each others **** when someone does something differently. Why is that?
 
Tom-D said:
Prove it.

Living and working under a different set of rules, and judging us Figures.
Click to expand...
Tom- prove you have any qualifications to fix planes. I know the laws of physics and chemistry apply in Canada too because when I work with customers there, the same techniques work here and there. So the way to fix aircraft is the same or close enough to work in both places.
 
Bill Jennings said:
We pilots for the most part don't disparage each other when discussing different methods of doing things flying related, yet it seems that a lot of A&P's want to jump allover each others **** when someone does something differently. Why is that?
Click to expand...
There is really one person here who makes such a habit.
 
Tom's been repairing aircraft longer than I've been doing anything. I myself will tend to defer to his judgement when it come stop aircraft maintenance.
 
So getting back to the topic, what are the other methods that may be used to repair the airbox?
 
steingar said:
Tom's been repairing aircraft longer than I've been doing anything. I myself will tend to defer to his judgement when it come stop aircraft maintenance.
Click to expand...
I used to feel the same as you until I saw he has a tendency to post "beyond his knowledge". When someone attempts to correct him, he gets very defensive and goes further into wrong information. It is as if I posted some very incorrect biochem information (as an example, I attempt to claim proteins carry genetic information rather than DNA), you try to correct me, and I start pulling more "facts" from my butt. You would, properly, question the rest of my knowledge in areas in which you may not have expertise.
 
Bill Jennings said:
We pilots for the most part don't disparage each other when discussing different methods of doing things flying related, yet it seems that a lot of A&P's want to jump allover each others **** when someone does something differently. Why is that?
Click to expand...

Actually, there are plenty of pilot comments when there's a perception that some pilot doesn't know what he's doing or the risks he's taking. Just read the comments on some posted videos.

Aircraft maintenance is far more complex and diversified than piloting. Most pilots have no idea of the extensive regulations surrounding maintenance, modifications and repairs, the thick textbooks, the manufacturer's maintenance manuals, the huge Advisory Circulars. In Canada, like the US, a person with enough money and time and gumption can get a Commerical Pilot License in six months. A person with enough gumption and time and money will need 48 months to get the Aircraft Maintenance Engineer's license, and there are no shortcuts available. Unlike the US, formal mechanic's training is required here, not just apprenticeship. You can solo an aiplane at age 14 in Canada, be licensed at 17. An AME license cannot be had until you're 21.

So when a mechanic sees something that bothers him, something that another mechanic is defending, he's tempted to say something about it. Most of us have often found sketchy repairs falling apart and causing trouble and further expense. Besides the risk to safety, there is such a thing as false economy.

You could probably teach a monkey to fly. Nobody will ever teach a monkey to fix an airplane. It's complex. I'm not putting down pilots; I am one myself, was a flight instructor.
 
Dan Thomas said:
You could probably teach a monkey to fly. Nobody will ever teach a monkey to fix an airplane. It's complex. I'm not putting down pilots; I am one myself, was a flight instructor.
Click to expand...

OK, thanks for the synopsis.
 
Bill Jennings said:
pilots for the most part don't disparage each other when discussing different methods of doing things flying related
Click to expand...
Bill Jennings said:
lot of A&P's want to jump allover each others
Click to expand...

Aside from personality conflicts, you really can’t compare the two situations.

There is basically one FAR (43.13) that guides a mechanic in maintaining an aircraft. Given this single regulation is broad and diverse, each mechanic must interpret the FAR in their own manner.

However, on the operations side there are literally hundreds of specific regulations on how an aircraft is be flown. Each affording little interpretation unless someone wishes to bust that regulation.

So when there is a discussion between mechanics, a single topic may generate multiple solutions each legal within the regulations. And by nature, each mechanic will defend their solution.

For example, take the 150 air box we have in this post. I can probably come up with 5 different legal repair options. So which one would be more correct than the other?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top