Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: Best prop for a (certified) PA-18.

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    36
    Post Thanks / Like

    Best prop for a (certified) PA-18.

    Hello all you cub experts. Iím new here!
    what prop could you recommend?
    with 180 HP I belive is taking of quickly?
    better cruise performance is the only.
    which prop would you recommend?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,660
    Post Thanks / Like
    What type of flying will you be doing. Mostly paved/grass strips, Sandbars/gravel strips, or hardcore brush cutting mud slinging strips?
    DENNY

  3. #3
    Colorguns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Bloomfield NY
    Posts
    318
    Post Thanks / Like
    What does the STC say you can use?

    Doug
    Thanks jokerswe2008 thanked for this post

  4. #4
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,646
    Post Thanks / Like
    You might want to read this thread. http://www.supercub.org/forum/showth...-for-O-360-C4P
    Sensenich will cruise faster, McCauley 1A200 will take off and climb way better but longer and needs extended gear or big tires. Look at your STC for the 180 hp engine.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Thanks jokerswe2008 thanked for this post
    Likes WWhunter liked this post

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    36
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DENNY View Post
    What type of flying will you be doing. Mostly paved/grass strips, Sandbars/gravel strips, or hardcore brush cutting mud slinging strips?
    DENNY
    it will be sandbars and fields when I have trained enough. I just got the tailwheel rating yesterday.
    I believe I should be looking for a climb prop.
    Something I don’t think is mentioned in the discussion climb/speed prop, is that a climb prop will help an inexperienced pilot to get out of trouble in takeoff and landing.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    36
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    You might want to read this thread. http://www.supercub.org/forum/showth...-for-O-360-C4P
    Sensenich will cruise faster, McCauley 1A200 will take off and climb way better but longer and needs extended gear or big tires. Look at your STC for the 180 hp engine.
    I got 26 ABW, 3’ extended gear and 180 HP. The STC does not cover all options.
    could I find the STC with the prop? (“With extended gear and 180 HP this prop can be used”)

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,660
    Post Thanks / Like
    The metal props will take a whooping and keep going all day long!! So if you said you would not be trimming any brush or slinging mud or rock into the prop I would go with a Sensenich. Nothing wrong with owning two/three props. Learning to do a proper off-field runup/turns/takeoff helps protect the prop. I believe you need 9 inches of clearance in level flight for a prop to be legal. Good news is now you might need a set of 31inch bushwheels!! The pitch is what will pull you off the ground and/or pull you faster. Example a 160 hp cub with borer 82/40 vs 82/43, at 2400RPM the 82/40 is 7 mph slower. You will loose 30-40 feet on takeoff with the 80/43 but it will still pull a massive load off the ground and get you home before the sun sets. CHT,s are 15-20 degrees cooler with the 82/40. The best thing to do is find someone that has one one you might like laying around (heck just pull it off his plane) and take it out for a week or two. Climb props are a lot of fun but it you want to fly 400-600 miles a day it can get old fast.
    DENNY
    Likes TurboBeaver, Brandsman liked this post

  8. #8
    TurboBeaver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Northern Maine
    Posts
    668
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well since your "certified" then your certainly going to need a legal prop....... Even though a very high percentage
    Of Cubs being flown would likely not have the correct paperwork to satisfy a picky inspector....... So a compleately legal prop really isnt legal at all; unless you have all the Prop logs, (not likely)from one that Piper called out in the TC of your aircraft?
    If you slap a "Pawnee type" prop on, your going to need an STC for It ; on your "certified" airplane. And so it goes on and on
    Most prop STC's will call out some exact specs, but often props get Shortened and repitched out of those . However in real world flying; often times things are not always as it seams.( Some very interesting nomenclature hiding under lots of those spinners )
    Good luck finding a great prop for your cub, it is probably the one thing that makes any cub even better!
    Last edited by TurboBeaver; 10-02-2018 at 05:55 AM.

  9. #9
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,646
    Post Thanks / Like
    Your STC for the engine calls out the propeller approved for installation on your airplane. I believe both 180 hp STCs include bothe the metal Sensenich and McCauley 1A200. You should also have a flight manual suppliment with that info.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  10. #10
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,646
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by TurboBeaver View Post
    Well since your "certified" then your certainly going to need a legal prop....... Even though a very high percentage
    Of Cubs being flown would likely not have the correct paperwork to satisfy a picky inspector....... So a compleately legal prop really isnt legal at all; unless you have all the Prop logs, (not likely)from one that Piper called out in the TC of your aircraft?
    If you slap a "Borer" prop on, your going to need an STC for It ;on your "certified" airplane. And so it goes on and on
    Most prop STC's will call out some exact specs, but often props get Shortened and repitched out of those . However in real world flying; often times things are not always as it seams.( Some very interesting nomenclature hiding under lots of spinners )
    Good luck finding a great prop for your cub, it is probably the one thing that makes any cub even better!
    I have not seen prop logs until recent years. Haven't seen a requirement to have a prop log. An IA signs the airplane off as airworthy if he deems it so.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    746
    Post Thanks / Like
    As far as the getting an inexperienced pilot out of trouble NO PROP will do that it takes a lot of money and rebuilding of the airplane to do that after you learn the hard way. Practice short landing and take offs and there will still be a pucker factor for a while.
    Likes supercrow liked this post

  12. #12
    TurboBeaver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Northern Maine
    Posts
    668
    Post Thanks / Like
    Steve, I agree about prop logs. But thats the way its leaning. However like welding a simple tube into the topdeck, to Xbrace. Hundreds have em with no paperwork. Hundreds more have it with Atlees paperwork, that he would pass you for "nothing". But now that is all different: you legally need to bow down to Univar and pay for that, or you know the rest of the story...........
    The new generation of mechanics will have the paperwork all "perfect"; to cover their ass, and the airplanes will go out the door halfassed; because in the future because of govt policy, they will have the priorities backwards.
    If anyone wants to see how far out of control this govt is: Just keep watching this judge, trying to get appointed......
    Last edited by TurboBeaver; 10-02-2018 at 06:30 AM.
    Likes skywagon8a liked this post

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Bettles AK & Arizona
    Posts
    289
    Post Thanks / Like
    If the paperwork doesn't take as long as the repair, you're doing it wrong - or so it seems. As far as prop logs. I get them wtih new props or overhauled but they never get a single entry in them until they are at TBO and go back to the prop shop. One sign-off is all you need for your annual/100 hour.

  14. #14
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,053
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    I have not seen prop logs until recent years. Haven't seen a requirement to have a prop log. An IA signs the airplane off as airworthy if he deems it so.
    If you want to get technical there is no requirement for a separate engine logbook either. ( See disclaimer below)

    Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.
    Likes supercrow liked this post

  15. #15
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    I dunno how they feel about prop logbooks,
    but I know a couple IA's who maintain that an entry in the engine logbook isn't required to document an annual inspection.
    One refused to put an entry in the engine book, and stuck to his guns even though it ended up losing him a customer.
    The other signed off in the engine logbook as a 100-hour.
    Maybe more IA's believe that, but most will put in an "inspected IAW an annual inspection...." entry anyway,
    as that's what the customer (the guy who's paying the bill!) wants to see.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  16. #16
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,273
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    ...but I know a couple IA's who maintain that an entry in the engine logbook isn't required to document an annual inspection.
    Those IAs are correct. It is the air frame which gets the annual inspection. Any work which is done to the engine at the same time is only incidental work on the engine. Only that work should be entered in the engine log book. There was a very good all around nice guy FAA man by the name of Bill O'Brien. He was the head guy in Washington in charge of all of the FAA inspectors who oversee all of the IAs World wide. He used to travel around giving talks at the annual IA meetings. I heard him tell the IAs at one of those meetings that the Annual inspection is only signed off in the airframe logbook. Not in the engine log.

    That customer who disagreed and took his plane elsewhere has lost the services of an IA who knew what he was supposed to be doing.
    N1PA
    Thanks Steve Pierce thanked for this post

  17. #17
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,053
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    Those IAs are correct. It is the air frame which gets the annual inspection. Any work which is done to the engine at the same time is only incidental work on the engine. Only that work should be entered in the engine log book. There was a very good all around nice guy FAA man by the name of Bill O'Brien. He was the head guy in Washington in charge of all of the FAA inspectors who oversee all of the IAs World wide. He used to travel around giving talks at the annual IA meetings. I heard him tell the IAs at one of those meetings that the Annual inspection is only signed off in the airframe logbook. Not in the engine log.
    I've got the article he wrote in one of the Aviation publications about that saved somewhere.

    another take on the issue ( not mine )

    ALL props come with log books! They have to, they're Type Certificated Products. It seems though that the fixed pitch props are in the Rodney Dangerfield category and don't get enough respect. You know, the late, great Bill O'Brien once told me [paraphrased] I don't care if you make your entry on a piece of toilet paper and staple it between two brown paper bags-that's a log entry! And he's absolutely correct! It's not the wrapping that makes the statement, it's the contents inside...

    I think the writer is confusing logbooks and aircraft records, but that's another issue.
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.

  18. #18
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    ….That customer who disagreed and took his plane elsewhere has lost the services of an IA who knew what he was supposed to be doing.
    I know the IA in question and it wasn't a great loss IMHO.
    He was a know-it-all type and had the bad habit of trying to make sure everyone knew how smart he was,
    to the point of unnecessarily costing his customers money & down time.

    FWIW the logbook issue I mentioned came up as a renter was taking his PP checkride in the airplane,
    and the DPE (apparently wrongly) decided that the airplane wasn't airworthy because of no annual inspection entry in the engine book.
    Applicant went home, complained to the airplane owner, who complained to the IA.
    Owner wanted an engine book entry, the IA refused, so that was the end of that business relationship.
    Oh yeah, that customer was the airport owner, the resulting hard feelings culminated in the IA getting kicked off the private airport.
    The whole drama could have been avoided if the IA had just p
    ut an entry in the engine book--
    after all I don't believe it's illegal to do so, just not required.
    FWIW right or wrong, when I pay someone for an annual inspection, I expect (and get) entries in all three logbooks.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!
    Thanks pfm thanked for this post
    Likes Brandsman liked this post

  19. #19
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,053
    Post Thanks / Like
    Student and owner should file a complaint with the faa against the DPE.
    If I was still doing customer annuals and an owner wanted it in all of the log books. id do it and charge him according.and I would say aircraft in each entry because I can't annual a propeller

    See if you can find the word log booK referenced in any FAR for anything but pilot records.

    Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by S2D; 10-27-2018 at 11:58 AM.
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.

  20. #20
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,053
    Post Thanks / Like
    Delete duplia cate
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.

  21. #21
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,435
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yep, had a quiz right after my latest annual was signed off: IA showed me airframe log, “Inspected IAW an annual” Gaza, ya a..... then he showed me engine book.....entry was inspected IAW 100 hour inspection. I said looks good to me but why do I need a 100 hour on the engine? He smiled, I smiled, I passed.

    MTV
    Likes Hardtailjohn liked this post

  22. #22
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    1,578
    Post Thanks / Like
    Can't the IA say "Inspected IAW manufacturer's ICA and found airworthy at this time" in the engine and prop logs? Or something similar.

    Gary
    Last edited by BC12D-4-85; 10-27-2018 at 02:34 PM.

  23. #23
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,273
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    I know the IA in question and it wasn't a great loss IMHO.
    He was a know-it-all type and had the bad habit of trying to make sure everyone knew how smart he was,
    to the point of unnecessarily costing his customers money & down time.

    FWIW the logbook issue I mentioned came up as a renter was taking his PP checkride in the airplane,
    and the DPE (apparently wrongly) decided that the airplane wasn't airworthy because of no annual inspection entry in the engine book.
    Applicant went home, complained to the airplane owner, who complained to the IA.
    Owner wanted an engine book entry, the IA refused, so that was the end of that business relationship.
    Oh yeah, that customer was the airport owner, the resulting hard feelings culminated in the IA getting kicked off the private airport.
    The whole drama could have been avoided if the IA had just p
    ut an entry in the engine book--
    after all I don't believe it's illegal to do so, just not required.
    FWIW right or wrong, when I pay someone for an annual inspection, I expect (and get) entries in all three logbooks.
    Ah Hah! The rest of the story. In this case the DPE was uninformed as to the annual records requirements. The entries in the engine and propeller logs should not refer to an annual inspection, only to that work which was accomplished on that product.
    N1PA
    Likes Steve Pierce liked this post

  24. #24

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    457
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    Ah Hah! The rest of the story. In this case the DPE was uninformed as to the annual records requirements. The entries in the engine and propeller logs should not refer to an annual inspection, only to that work which was accomplished on that product.
    And the PP applicant was unprepared and didnít understand the regulations sufficiently to explain it to the DPE. 91.409(a) specifies ďAircraftĒ there is nothing in 91.409 that says engine or prop. 43.11 provides the correct words to be used for inspections, and 43.9 identifies what needs to be recorded for maintenance. Finally 91.417 covers what maintenance records are to be kept. If the student/applicant canít articulate that, he shouldnít pass the test.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  25. #25
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,053
    Post Thanks / Like
    I sincerely doubt any one of us know the nuances of every applicable FAR. We couldn't even get people to agree on flying in Class E airspace if there was a cloud over the airport.
    Even if he knew it, I doubt he could get the DPE to change his mind. Had one here the same way.
    Try arguing with an FAA inspector when he's wrong.
    Last edited by S2D; 10-27-2018 at 05:39 PM.
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.
    Likes WWhunter, hotrod180, Hardtailjohn liked this post

  26. #26

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    457
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have, and actually went and flew an aircraft he questioned the Airworthiness on and I challenged him to file a violation on me and told him Iíd see him in court if he did.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Likes Steve Pierce liked this post

  27. #27
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,273
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by S2D View Post
    Try arguing with an FAA inspector when he's wrong.
    That is so much fun when you know that you are right. Just eliminate the arguing and replace it with explaining. When you do this often enough the FAA inspector will respect you and come to you for advise. I used to work for a respected old timer who used to tell the FAA inspectors to "go jump in the lake" and they would respond with "which one?".
    When you have earned the FAA's respect, doors will open.
    N1PA
    Likes WWhunter, mam90, Steve Pierce liked this post

  28. #28
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,053
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    Just eliminate the arguing and replace it with explaining.
    I asked my inspector once if we needed a compass in a Part 137 spray plane. Instead of a discussion on the regs he just said cause that's the way it came and went and inspected all my planes to make sure they had a compass in them. I don't ask questions any more.
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.

  29. #29
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,053
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by dgapilot View Post
    I have, and actually went and flew an aircraft he questioned the Airworthiness on and I challenged him to file a violation on me and told him I’d see him in court if he did.
    Just to play devils advocate, the same wording is used for 100 hr as is used for annual in 91.409. Yet per 65.85 and 65.87 the mechanic can sign off just the airframe or engine. I think this is where all the misunderstanding came from and at some point the FAA was telling people it had to be done that way.
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.

  30. #30
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by dgapilot View Post
    And the PP applicant was unprepared and didn’t understand the regulations sufficiently to explain it to the DPE. 91.409(a) specifies “Aircraft” there is nothing in 91.409 that says engine or prop. 43.11 provides the correct words to be used for inspections, and 43.9 identifies what needs to be recorded for maintenance. Finally 91.417 covers what maintenance records are to be kept. If the student/applicant can’t articulate that, he shouldn’t pass the test.
    Wow, you're a tough grader, I'm glad I didn't do my checkride with you!
    And good luck "explaining" to the DPE.
    Don't think I've ever met one that would allow himself to be corrected by a mere PP applicant.

    I guess the proper response would be to fail the student, sue the DPE, and award a gold medal to the IA.
    Wouldn't it be an easier "path to yes" to just put the entry that most people expect to see in the engine logbook?


    Quote Originally Posted by S2D View Post
    If I was still doing customer annuals and an owner wanted it in all of the log books. id do it and charge him according. and I would say aircraft in each entry because I can't annual a propeller. ...


    "Aircraft" is fine, substituting "engine" and "propeller" respectively would be better.
    Is it that big of a deal? Would you lose a customer just to stand on your principals?
    And just how much more would you charge for making two more entries?
    Most IA's print out logbook entries on labels and paste them into the logbook.
    I figure it'd take about 5 minutes to modify the entry twice ("airframe" to "engine" and "propeller"),
    print out 2 labels, and paste 'em in.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!
    Likes flyrite, Brandsman liked this post

  31. #31
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,273
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    Wouldn't it be an easier "path to yes" to just put the entry that most people expect to see in the engine logbook?
    Easier, Yes it would be easier. Eventually easier leads to many who are uninformed. Wouldn't it be better to inform people up front what the correct method is to do something? After all, repetition of something false does not make it right. Somewhere along the line that DPE didn't learn something and that something slipped through the cracks causing that PP applicant not to receive his license on that day.

    There are two ways to do something, a right way and a wrong way. Isn't it better to do it the right way the first time?
    N1PA
    Likes Brandsman liked this post

  32. #32
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,053
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post


    Wouldn't it be an easier "path to yes" to just put the entry that most people expect to see in the engine logbook?





    Oh don't get me wrong, I put the 100 hr entry in the logbook for the next student that went to the DPE, but I also included a copy of Bill O'Briens article on the proper signoffs. Last one that went to him anyway, his DPE was jerked for other reasons.
    I'm not a total asshole, if someone wants a signoff in logbook, I will oblige them but it will be written my way. Probably something along the lines of :

    Date 11/11/2023 Tach Time XX Prop total time ZZ. NXXXX was annualed this date IAW FAR 43 app D and this propeller was found to be in airworthy condition as installed.


    Now what if he takes that prop off and has a different one put on 20 hrs later. Does the installing mechanic have to annual the new prop??

    What if The engine starts making metal 50 hrs later and it's replaced. Does the installing mechanic have to annual the engine or does just a signoff returning it to service suffice??

    Try putting a " and a list of discrepancies was provided to the owner" type of annual signoff in the logbook and watch a DPE squeal.
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.

  33. #33
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,053
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    Easier, Yes it would be easier. Eventually easier leads to many who are uninformed. Wouldn't it be better to inform people up front what the correct method is to do something? After all, repetition of something false does not make it right. Somewhere along the line that DPE didn't learn something and that something slipped through the cracks causing that PP applicant not to receive his license on that day.

    There are two ways to do something, a right way and a wrong way. Isn't it better to do it the right way the first time?

    This is exactly what happened with the old Control Zone snafu (now called ClassE surface area). A whole generation of pilots were told you couldn't go in one if the ceiling was less than 1000 feet or the visibility was less than 3 miles at the reporting station, and pretty soon it was Gospel that you couldn't regardless of what the FAR said.
    Last edited by S2D; 10-28-2018 at 11:01 AM.
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.

  34. #34

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    457
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    Wow, you're a tough grader, I'm glad I didn't do my checkride with you!
    And good luck "explaining" to the DPE.
    Don't think I've ever met one that would allow himself to be corrected by a mere PP applicant.

    I guess the proper response would be to fail the student, sue the DPE, and award a gold medal to the IA.
    Wouldn't it be an easier "path to yes" to just put the entry that most people expect to see in the engine logbook?




    "Aircraft" is fine, substituting "engine" and "propeller" respectively would be better.
    Is it that big of a deal? Would you lose a customer just to stand on your principals?
    And just how much more would you charge for making two more entries?
    Most IA's print out logbook entries on labels and paste them into the logbook.
    I figure it'd take about 5 minutes to modify the entry twice ("airframe" to "engine" and "propeller"),
    print out 2 labels, and paste 'em in.
    Funny story about PP applicant questioning the examiner. When my daughter was going for her private glider ride (16 years old), the examiner asked her during the oral to explain the required entries in the log book for the glider they were about to fly. She looked at the log and noted that an AD and the annual were both 2 months out of date! The Examiner was just a little embarrassed given that the glider had been used by the school for 2 months out of annual. Oh yeah, she passed the check ride.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Likes Brandsman liked this post

  35. #35
    WhiskeyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Boxford MA
    Posts
    874
    Post Thanks / Like

    Compasses Spray plane

    Quote Originally Posted by S2D View Post
    I asked my inspector once if we needed a compass in a Part 137 spray plane. Instead of a discussion on the regs he just said cause that's the way it came and went and inspected all my planes to make sure they had a compass in them. I don't ask questions any more.
    For what little bit itís worth the old CAR Part 8 required equipment said that a compass was suggested equipment - but not required. I donít know about Part 137. I built a J-5 banner plane with a 180 hp in it and left the compass out on purpose. the FAA certified it (this plane only flew very locally)
    Thanks S2D thanked for this post

  36. #36
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,053
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by WhiskeyMike View Post
    For what little bit itís worth the old CAR Part 8 required equipment said that a compass was suggested equipment - but not required. I donít know about Part 137. )
    That's why I wanted a little discussion on it.


    Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.

Similar Threads

  1. non certified floats on certified plane
    By swoeric in forum Float Operations
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 12-21-2017, 06:35 PM
  2. MT Composite Prop certified but Catto not certified
    By slowjunk in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 04-11-2017, 06:15 AM
  3. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 06-09-2013, 03:04 PM
  4. Certified or not??
    By NimpoCub in forum Modifications
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 11-05-2011, 09:18 AM
  5. Experimental or Certified
    By Nathan K. Hammond in forum Tips and Tricks
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-10-2002, 11:33 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •