GA Mechanics Airplanes vs. Pilots Airplanes

kontiki

kontiki

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
1,121
Display Name
Display name:
Kontiki
I don't see many GA folks talking about which airplanes are Pilots Airplanes and which are Mechanics airplanes.

I think of a mechanics airplane as those that are very easy to work on, but maybe aren't so hot on performance. Conversely a pilots airplane is a PIA to work on because of possibly cramped access, and small cockpit, but performance is pretty good (given the engine size and fuel consumption).

I think of the Grumman Tiger as a pilots airplane, because the sliding canopy makes getting at everything behind the panel painful. A DIY pilot & A&P might want to start out with a Mechanics airplane. Any thoughts on which is which?
 
When I get around to finally buying a plane, it will be simple and easy to work on. I've had enough difficult for one lifetime.
 
Interesting question - curious to see the results of more mechanically knowledgeable posters opinions. Although I suspect a lot comes down to overall simplicity - e.g., a cub is easier to work on than a PA46 and randomness - e.g., most airplanes will have some simple stuff and some hard stuff. Sometimes, the latter may be weird - an example in the car world is my 1996 Porsche C4S is a PITA to change the oil on (two filters, one of which is quite difficult to access and 12 quarts of oil) but replacing the entire headlight takes about 5 seconds if you are clumsy. WTF were they thinking? How often are people swapping out headlights vs. changing the oil???
 
My mechanic says that my XJS V12 was built to look at, not to work on.

My A&P feels similarly about my Mooney.

Speeds are similar (when road conditions and traffic permit testing), but the Mooney gets the edge in time over distance. Fuel economy at normal cruise is about the same, mid-to-high teens, but the Mooney far outstrips it when traveling at the same speed (Jag flag out or Mooney throttled way back). Seating position is also quite similar, but the Jaguar is roomier despite only having two seats.

Oh, yeah--I'm a hands-on Mechanical Engineer, and do as much to both as I am able. :cool:
 
For GA planes it’s kind of a wash, they are all about the same. High wings are easier generally because you don’t have to keep walking all the way around the wings or spend time on a flat creeper. For working in the cabin the best is probably a Cardinal. For tight engines the worst is probably an Aerostar and the guy who invented the dual magneto should be taken out and shot.
 
Pilot's airplane: Bonanza.
Mechanic's airplane: Bonanza

Wonderful to fly.

When I mentioned to my mechanic that I was considering a Mooney, he said: "Get a Bonanza!"
"Bonanzas are expensive" I replied
"All airplanes are expensive- Get a good one"
 
Non Compos Mentis said:
Pilot's airplane: Bonanza.
Mechanic's airplane: Bonanza

Wonderful to fly.

When I mentioned to my mechanic that I was considering a Mooney, he said: "Get a Bonanza!"
"Bonanzas are expensive" I replied
"All airplanes are expensive- Get a good one"
Click to expand...
I need to dump all my Cessna customers, get 2 bonanza customers , I'd make more money.
 
Yo
Non Compos Mentis said:
Pilot's airplane: Bonanza.
Mechanic's airplane: Bonanza

Wonderful to fly.

When I mentioned to my mechanic that I was considering a Mooney, he said: "Get a Bonanza!"
"Bonanzas are expensive" I replied
"All airplanes are expensive- Get a good one"[/QUOTE

Obviously you never worked on a banana. The biggest problem is the douche bag owner.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not sure why a pilot's airplane can't be mechanic friendly. Taking the Grumman Tiger as a case in point, there's no logical reason why the cowl area behind the firewall and forward of the instrument panel couldn't have been engineered so it could be easily removed for access to wiring, instruments, avionics, etc. What does a sliding canopy have to do with access behind the instrument panel?

Designers are often focused on ease of assembly (lower production labor costs) at the expense of ease of maintenance.

Cowling removed for panel access (not a Tiger, but similar configuration).
CIMG8685%208x6_zps8ykb0ykh.jpg
 
A pilots's airplane is one that goes fast. A mechanic's airplane is one that's easy to work on, i.e. lots of room to get at what needs fixed. These two things are mutually incompatible. Lots of space to get at things means larger frontal area, slower airplane.
 
My buddy, the mechanic, once told me if I ever bought a Cessna 337, he'd put my eyes out and cut off my hands and feet.
Not sure what that's all about.
 
Well there’s two ways of looking at it.....

A ‘mechanics airplane’ could be any airplane that some hapless pilot bought from a flight school ramp in Florida that will put the shop owners kids through college....

Or it could be an airplane that requires little effort to maintain or easy to work on.
 
When my mechanic was looking to buy a plane, he said he would be happy with either a Mooney or a Bonanza. Ended up with a Mooney, probably because of cost!
 
Fearless Tower said:
Not really. Textron makes all the money for both on the parts.
Click to expand...
I have my customers buy the parts, who cares how much they cost? But I could double my per hour costs, the rich Bo owner wouldn't care.
 
asicer said:
I'll bet writing checks for it isn't so easy...
Click to expand...
It’s all relative. Like any airplane, the maintenance isn’t that bad if you find a good one that’s been taken care of.

We’re going through the pains of the ‘first annual’ now and the only real issue I have in mine is the electrical. It’s a rat’s nest of almost 80 years of people doing stupid stuff on top of stupid stuff. The guy I bought it from was a friend, and let’s just say electrical wasn’t his forte.

But once we get it all straightened out, it shouldn’t be much trouble.
 
Fearless Tower said:
It’s all relative. Like any airplane, the maintenance isn’t that bad if you find a good one that’s been taken care of.

We’re going through the pains of the ‘first annual’ now and the only real issue I have in mine is the electrical. It’s a rat’s nest of almost 80 years of people doing stupid stuff on top of stupid stuff. The guy I bought it from was a friend, and let’s just say electrical wasn’t his forte.

But once we get it all straightened out, it shouldn’t be much trouble.
Click to expand...
How hard can it be, for an aircraft that was designed and built to last 10 flights.
Electrical? what's that consist of? lights and a charging circuit?
 
Tom-D said:
How hard can it be, for an aircraft that was designed and built to last 10 flights.
Electrical? what's that consist of? lights and a charging circuit?
Click to expand...
Well for one, the RAF and then RCAF operated my airplane from 1941 to 1960. Lots of different radios and other gear installed and removed at various points. Then civilian owners trying to do their own work-arounds for avionics, intercoms, etc.

The airplane literally reminds me of a 40 year old Navy ship in a shipyard. Tons of dead-end cables left in place when stuff was removed but they just cut the cords and left them all bunched up in junction boxes or wadded up and zip tied to the frame..

We even found a power box where someone had stuffed a dirty tube sock in to keep the loose wires for the starter from rattling around.
 
Fearless Tower said:
It’s all relative...

...But once we get it all straightened out, it shouldn’t be much trouble.
Click to expand...

Yup. That's what we all say in the beginning, isn't it. :D
 
kontiki said:
I don't see many GA folks talking about which airplanes are Pilots Airplanes and which are Mechanics airplanes.

...
Click to expand...

Mechanics airplanes are airplanes that never fly. Pilots airplanes are airplanes that are never grounded.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Well for one, the RAF and then RCAF operated my airplane from 1941 to 1960. Lots of different radios and other gear installed and removed at various points. Then civilian owners trying to do their own work-arounds for avionics, intercoms, etc.

The airplane literally reminds me of a 40 year old Navy ship in a shipyard. Tons of dead-end cables left in place when stuff was removed but they just cut the cords and left them all bunched up in junction boxes or wadded up and zip tied to the frame..

We even found a power box where someone had stuffed a dirty tube sock in to keep the loose wires for the starter from rattling around.
Click to expand...

And who's been annulling that? Best fire them
 
Either I just saw your airplane described elsewhere last night or there's a second tube sock Harvard out there.
 
I find the Grumman's to be very easy to work on with under the panel being an exception. On the other hand, most A&P's hate a Mooney. A Husky is another dreaded airplane for some mechanics. They have an unbelievable amount of screws that have to be removed for everything.
 
As far as a pilots plane you would get 100 different answers from 100 different pilots depending on the mission. A mechanics answer is always the same easy to work on....:rolleyes:
 
The worst I have ever worked on, Hawkers. The real ones that are the 800 and 900 series. Step #1 on a big inspection is buying a 100 drill bits, because the panel fasteners are garbage. Not only are they garbage but aren't cheap so every big inspection pretty much requires a small fortune worth of coin slot bolts. The British loved special tools so much its like they built everything with the idea they would sell a lot of special tools to service them. Fortunately we have several mechanics that love the airplanes, those guys are awesome, they can have them.

Oh, and every bolt that requires a cotter pin, those cotter pin holes were drilled by a mechanic in the field. When you order new bolts they aren't drilled. So if you get bolts, nuts and washers mixed up at all its a huge PITA to reassemble. Might as well order all new bolts, assemble and drill all new cotter pin holes.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
The worst I have ever worked on, Hawkers. The real ones that are the 800 and 900 series. Step #1 on a big inspection is buying a 100 drill bits, because the panel fasteners are garbage. Not only are they garbage but aren't cheap so every big inspection pretty much requires a small fortune worth of coin slot bolts. The British loved special tools so much its like they built everything with the idea they would sell a lot of special tools to service them. Fortunately we have several mechanics that love the airplanes, those guys are awesome, they can have them.

Oh, and every bolt that requires a cotter pin, those cotter pin holes were drilled by a mechanic in the field. When you order new bolts they aren't drilled. So if you get bolts, nuts and washers mixed up at all its a huge PITA to reassemble. Might as well order all new bolts, assemble and drill all new cotter pin holes.
Click to expand...
Sounds as if some one should produce a inspection service kit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top