Question for the A&Ps

Tom-D said:
No, I just ignore the source. A great machinist he may be, an A&P he isn't.
Click to expand...

Since it is Christmas... I will let this slide... And...

I do NOT want to be considered an A&P..... Earlier in this thread you claimed you just "follow the book" on doing stuff..... Heck,,, we can teach monkeys to do stuff like that.....:rolleyes:

It takes ALOT of skill to build a plane from scratch, design and engineer all the components to stuff in a 400 HP motor in a airframe the kit maker wanted 150-180 HP in it..... Including designing the engine mount and ALL the accessories needed to make it safely fly... I am 11 years, 500+ hours and 100,000 miles on my homebuilt and it works PERFECTLY....

Now. when I get old and feeble, I might become a A&P, so I can take a certified plane, disassemble it, sand /bead blast the real corroded parts, scotch brite the other corroded parts. Buy a few cans of Krylon and make it look real perty..

Follow that by totaling a restored plane by poor airmanship causing a ground loop.. or worse yet, build a motor for a unsuspecting couple and have it critically injure them both, and then get on a website claiming it was NOTHING you did...

I will put my successful results against yours any day old buddy....


Merry Christmas Tom...
 
Keep in mind, odds are almost 10 to 1, fatal aircraft accidents are pilot error, over mechanical error. Claiming to "follow the book" is the only correct answer.
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
Since it is Christmas... I will let this slide... And...

I do NOT want to be considered an A&P..... Earlier in this thread you claimed you just "follow the book" on doing stuff..... Heck,,, we can teach monkeys to do stuff like that.....:rolleyes:

It takes ALOT of skill to build a plane from scratch, design and engineer all the components to stuff in a 400 HP motor in a airframe the kit maker wanted 150-180 HP in it..... Including designing the engine mount and ALL the accessories needed to make it safely fly... I am 11 years, 500+ hours and 100,000 miles on my homebuilt and it works PERFECTLY....

Now. when I get old and feeble, I might become a A&P, so I can take a certified plane, disassemble it, sand /bead blast the real corroded parts, scotch brite the other corroded parts. Buy a few cans of Krylon and make it look real perty..

Follow that by totaling a restored plane by poor airmanship causing a ground loop.. or worse yet, build a motor for a unsuspecting couple and have it critically injure them both, and then get on a website claiming it was NOTHING you did...

I will put my successful results against yours any day old buddy....


Merry Christmas Tom...
Click to expand...
You make reference to two accidents that you have no clue as to what happened. You've seen no tear down reports, you seen no pictures but you still claim to know every thing that happened.
TCM did the tear down on the 150/0-200 and found absolutely no problems with the engine in its build or the parts used. But you are a better judge than them.

You judge me on only your imagination and bias and hatred of those who can comply with the rules that make us all safe.

You have never flown any antique aircraft or know anything about how or why the Fairchild was ground looped yet you blame me for that too.

Thousands of home built aircraft fly every year by people who know very little of how or why they do what they are told in the instruction. You've bragged at length about the DATA you have choked me on, yet all is about home built or auto information and none pertain to certified aircraft.

You need to start telling the truth about your self, and not allow your ego blind you to other's achievements.

Just because you can program a CNC machine doesn't make you special. Plus just because you fly a home built with several thousand horse power engine doesn't make you all that special either.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Keep in mind, odds are almost 10 to 1, fatal aircraft accidents are pilot error, over mechanical error. Claiming to "follow the book" is the only correct answer in a public forum.
Click to expand...

Many pilots do not recognize a sick aircraft and fly it anyway. thus the "pilot error" rates.

And in many the "book" was never read,
The preflight inspection was not done correctly.

Or the owner simply cheaped it out and couldn't cope with the problems they caused.

Mechanical failures are rare, and even then most are material failures not A&P mistakes. A&P mistakes are most often found by pilots prior to flight.
 
N801BH said:
or worse yet, build a motor for a unsuspecting couple and have it critically injure them both.
Click to expand...

That statement right there has prompted two of my customers to advise me to file a libel suit on you.

Be carefull where you go with statements like that. I'm not beyond owning your aircraft.

I have told you twice that there was nothing wrong with that 0-200, I'm not at liberty to say what the NTSB has determined that caused that crash. Until we see the final report, you'd best keep your opinions to your self.
 
I had a pilot give me **** a long time ago on another forum. He accused me of hating pilots. He couldn't have been more wrong. My brother was a pilot. I've spent the majority of my life working to keep pilots safe. Anyway we went around for a couple years until the truth came out. He hated mechanics. He lost a couple pilot friends due to a mechanical mistake. He could have been in that plane. I understood his feelings, told him I wasn't that mechanic. Then more came out, the mechanic died in the accident too. And the NTSB faulted the pilots for inadequate preflight. The pilot that had accused me of hating pilots, had left out the last two facts. He left the forum, shortly thereafter.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
That statement right there has prompted two of my customers to advise me to file a libel suit on you.

Be carefull where you go with statements like that. I'm not beyond owning your aircraft.

I have told you twice that there was nothing wrong with that 0-200, I'm not at liberty to say what the NTSB has determined that caused that crash. Until we see the final report, you'd best keep your opinions to your self.
Click to expand...

Libel suit ???:dunno::dunno::dunno::confused:


If I can get sued for stating the FACTS, then bring it on

FACT.... Tom Downey lost control while landing a Fairchild...


FACT.. That aircraft was totaled...


FACT... Tom Rebuilt a motor in a certified aircraft that ended up loosing power and crashing into trees and injuring people..

Can you show to me and all the others here how me pointing out FACTS you yourself posted on a web forum is libel ?:dunno::confused::confused:...

Ps.... Remember.. I did NOT say you were responsible for the power loss....:rolleyes:
 
GlennAB1 said:
There are a multitude of references to engine "stroke cycle" or "stroke-cy4cle" on the Internet.

You can't even provide one reference to valve overlap = "5th stroke".

Yes, the stuff you posted is "crap".
Click to expand...

I gave reference earlier to the Miller Cycle

This two-stage intake stroke creates the so-called "fifth" stroke that the Miller cycle introduces.
Click to expand...

Patented in 1957 and, as I said, has nothing to do with anything we are talking about here. Nor would I consider it "basic 101" engine stuff for school. It's not so common although if you've ever noticed how weird Subaru engines sound, kind of like a VW bug on 3 cylinders, I think they use it. There aren't actually five "strokes" it's just a term they cooked up to define what's going on with the overlap and pre-charge.
 
The Miller cycle engine intake valve stayed open longer than the Otto engine to allow some fuel air mixture to go back into the intake manifold, this reduced the work, or loss of power from compression. It resulted in a net power loss but a substantial fuel savings. In order to increase power, a blower could be added, with substantial cost increase, hence it's downfall.
 
N801BH said:
Libel suit ???:dunno::dunno::dunno::confused:


If I can get sued for stating the FACTS, then bring it on

FACT.... Tom Downey lost control while landing a Fairchild...The FAA's determination was a mechanical caused incident.


FACT.. That aircraft was totaled...No, it is now flying again. Yes I took the money rather than fix it.


FACT... Tom Rebuilt a motor in a certified aircraft that ended up loosing power and crashing into trees and injuring people..Cause yet to be determined, yet you blame me, engines do quit for other reasons

Can you show to me and all the others here how me pointing out FACTS you yourself posted on a web forum is libel ?:dunno::confused::confused:...

You make too many assumptions to have any facts.

Ps.... Remember.. I did NOT say you were responsible for the power loss....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

you have placed too much emphasis on my inabilities for any one to make any other conclusion. The statement is a direct slander of me .

Remember you did say. "or worse yet, build a motor for a unsuspecting couple and have it critically injure them both".
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
Tom....why are you drawing such drama?:nono::goofy:
Click to expand...

If I lied about you, would you let it go?

This guy tries his best to degrade every A&P mechanic, Why? When you challenge him about it he uses word schematics to avoid the embarrassment of the lie.

I hope that every one has noted that he always tells what HE has done, but never tells us how many people are dependent upon him to keep them flying. He continues to use the info I give here, (for others to learn) to show how poor of an A&P I am but has no facts of his own.

The Cessna 150/0-200 that I rebuilt was inspected by 2 Cessna inspectors, 2 Continental engine inspectors, 1 FSDO inspector (my PMI) and a NTSB inspector, yet and not a single discrepancy has been found. But of course he won't tell you that. All he will imply is I built an engine that quit. Well a lot of A&Ps have, it does not meant it was their fault.
His posts here are demeaning to every A&P in the business. I hope the mods recognize this and turn his rhetoric off.
 
I changed a left wing boost pump on that G-1 (above), the day before it crashed. That was the first thing the accident investigation team looked at. They inspected the installation, then disassembled and inspected the fuel feed from the boost pump to the failed engine. The boost pump was operationally tested, the engine was totally tested. No mechanical fault was found.
 
Sure is a good thing we got rid of the SZ so that everyone would be nice to each other without the spillover.

As the guy said: "How's that workin out for ya?"
 
JOhnH said:
Sure is a good thing we got rid of the SZ so that everyone would be nice to each other without the spillover.

As the guy said: "How's that workin out for ya?"
Click to expand...
I noticed you resurrected a 3-week old thread to make your comment...
 
Everskyward said:
I noticed you resurrected a 3-week old thread to make your comment...
Click to expand...

Oh! Craptastic. I didn't even notice that. I responded to a reanimation. Deleting my post. It mentioned a properly verboten topic, anyway, I realize. Need to kill it for that anyway.
 
arnoha said:
Oh! Craptastic. I didn't even notice that. I responded to a reanimation. Deleting my post. It mentioned a properly verboten topic, anyway, I realize. Need to kill it for that anyway.
Click to expand...

No problem. Some of these Maintenance Bay threads come from together...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top