March 10, 2023 - No. 010 In This Issue : CONTINENTAL PROVIDES CLARITY ON CRANKSHAFT PROBLEM MANDATORY SERVICE BULLETIN CALLS FOR IMMEDIATE INSPECTIONS : SPAR INSPECTION RESULTS RAISE FAA CONCERN AD NOW FINAL FOR CESSNA 210/177 : AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE: A MODERN APPROACH TO COMPRESSION TESTING : The Drip, Drip Of Bad Publicity About 100LL : New math and the unleaded future of general aviation : FAA’s new rule will create mLSA Foundation Formed To Restore First-delivered Learjet : Preflighting Propellers : Pratt & Whitney Canada Passes One Billion Flight-Hour Milestone : For New Engineers, DOD Has Many Opportunities CONTINENTAL PROVIDES CLARITY ON CRANKSHAFT PROBLEM MANDATORY SERVICE BULLETIN CALLS FOR IMMEDIATE INSPECTIONS February 13, 2023 By Jim Moore Continental Aerospace Technologies issued mandatory instructions on February 13 to owners of various piston engines, including models in the 360, 470, 520, and 550 series, to inspect crankshaft assemblies with less than 200 hours in service for a possible assembly defect that could cause engine failure. The mandatory service bulletin issued February 13 requires piston removal to inspect crankshaft counterweight retaining rings for proper installation and correct a “potential assembly error” that affects about 2,000 crankshaft assemblies (installed and otherwise), Continental noted in the bulletin. The bulletin was issued five days after Cirrus Aircraft announced the precautionary grounding of its own fleet of SR22 and SR22T models powered by Continental engines assembled since June 2021, a decision prompted by communication from Continental to Cirrus. The engine maker offered some additional details in a brief statement February 10, and the February 13 bulletin added further clarity. Only engines with less than 200 operating hours require immediate inspection, with “an additional five flight hours acceptable to move to a maintenance facility with minimum essential crew, if necessary.” No further action is required for engines with more than 200 operating hours.“It is possible one or more counterweight retaining rings were not properly seated in the crankshaft counterweight groove,” the bulletin states. “This condition could allow the counterweight to depart from the crankshaft during engine operation resulting in catastrophic engine damage.” A 24-page appendix to the eight-page bulletin lists affected engine and crankshaft serial numbers. The inspection costs are covered under warranty, and Continental detailed eligibility requirements that vary according to whether the affected crankshaft assembly has been installed, and by model and the number of cylinders required to be removed to complete the inspection. (Up to 22 labor hours are covered for six-cylinder engines from which three cylinders must be removed and reinstalled to complete the inspection, for example.) Continental detailed a procedure to obtain warranty reimbursement. CONTINENTAL PROVIDES CLARITY ON CRANKSHAFT PROBLEM MANDATORY SERVICE BULLETIN CALLS FOR IMMEDIATE INSPECTIONS SPAR INSPECTION RESULTS RAISE FAA CONCERN AD NOW FINAL FOR CESSNA 210/177 February 16, 2023 By Jim Moore The FAA pushed back on commenters seeking to reduce the scope of an airworthiness directive to inspect wing spar components on certain Cessna 210 and 177 models, citing the results of inspections performed to date. The final AD, published February 13 and effective March 20, was proposed in May 2021 following the in-flight breakup of a Cessna 210M in Australia in 2019. An FAA-estimated 3,421 U.S.-registered aircraft were to be subject to visual and eddy current inspections of the lower wing spar carry-through cap. The final AD cites the same number of aircraft, and continues to require one-time visual and eddy current inspection of the same wing spar components. The FAA estimates that required inspections will cost $3,108 per aircraft, up to $3,788 if oxygen and air conditioning must be removed for inspection access. On-condition costs, including additional eddy current inspection and, in the worst case, wing spar replacement, are far higher: up to $40,200 to replace the spar of a Cessna 177, though that is a theoretical number since the parts are out of production.Comments on the proposed AD noted that no Cessna 177 wing has failed in flight, and that service difficulty reports did not support the inclusion of that model in the AD. The FAA disagreed, citing the failure rate of Cessna 177 wing spar inspections to date: “Out of the 211 Model 177-series reports received by the FAA as of January 13, 2023, 120 have reported corrosion,” the agency wrote in the final AD. “Of those, at least 14 were removed from service due to corrosion or damage.” The 14 Cessna 177 spars taken out of service following inspections to date have not likely been replaced with new parts. The FAA noted that Textron Aviation is still working to develop a replacement spar for those aircraft, long out of production. None of the later-model Cessna 210s inspected to date had spars taken out of service due to corrosion too severe to grind down and leave enough structure to remain in service, the FAA noted, though two Cessna 210 spars were removed from service due to damage. Just under 7 percent of the newer 210s had any corrosion found on inspection. Among the older Cessna 210s, the rate of corrosion discovery was much higher—47 percent. The FAA noted, however, that while the rate of corrosion discovery was lower, the newer Cessna 210 models are more susceptible to spar failure if the structure becomes compromised: “Analysis completed by Textron revealed that later Model 210-series airplanes, due to their weight and configuration, demonstrate higher stress levels in operation when compared to earlier Model 210-series airplanes. Therefore, the critical crack length—the length at which the crack reduces the capability of the structure below that provided in the certification basis—is smaller in the later Model 210-series airplanes.” While the FAA did not entirely close the door on alternative methods of compliance, it rejected arguments that the AD should mirror a 2020 AD issued to address spar corrosion in Piper Aircraft PA–28 and PA–32 models. “The unsafe condition on the Model 210-and 177-series airplanes addressed by this AD involves both corrosion and cracking,” the agency wrote. “The FAA cannot use an evaluation similar to the one used for the Piper airplanes to draw the same conclusions or correlations to the unsafe condition addressed by this AD, as the unsafe condition associated with AD 2020-26-16 [applicable to Piper airplanes] is primarily associated with fatigue cracking concerns.” AOPA continues to monitor the effects of age and corrosion across the general aviation fleet, and encourages owners to remain engaged in the process. Information that aircraft owners provide to AOPA (in addition to the reports required by the FAA) will help bolster future advocacy on behalf of aircraft owners against mandating inspections and other measures not supported by data indicating they are needed in the interest of safety. SPAR INSPECTION RESULTS RAISE FAA CONCERN AD NOW FINAL FOR CESSNA 210/177 AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE: A MODERN APPROACH TO COMPRESSION TESTING February 13, 2023 By Jeff Simon Previously in this series about monitoring engine health, we have focused on oil filters and analysis since oil changes occur throughout the year, rather than only at the annual inspection. However, when annual inspection time arrives, there is one test that aircraft owners seem to fixate on above all else: the compression test. Cylinder compressions are the ancient measuring stick of the aircraft maintenance world. For decades, mechanics were taught to use go/no-go compression numbers such as 60/80 as a guide to pull a cylinder for repair or replacement. Without much thought about where or why “failing” cylinders were leaking air during the testing, it’s likely that thousands of perfectly good cylinders were banished to the scrap yard needlessly. Even today, many aircraft for-sale ads list a series of compressions as a badge of honor that supposedly proves the health of the engine in just a few numbers. Buyer beware to those who subscribe to that belief. With the advent of tools such as digital borescopes, the industry has evolved to understand cylinder health on a much deeper level than a compression check can convey. This has led some to view compressions as almost meaningless. The truth is far more complex.During a compression test, air is fed into a cylinder with the intake and exhaust valves closed and the piston at top dead center. The air pressure in the cylinder is measured against the air pressure being fed into it, producing a number that essentially represents a rate of leakage from the cylinder in this condition. Using 80 psi as the most common input pressure, a cylinder compression reading would be some lesser pressure that the cylinder will hold, over the input pressure. For example: 75/80 would mean that with 80 psi on the input reference side of the gauge, the cylinder can maintain 75 psi as it leaks out past the rings and valves. This “cylinder compression” number is of limited value by itself. To put at least some value on it, we need to have a reference number for comparison. Using common numbers such as 60/80 or 40/80 as minimums for a healthy cylinder is relatively meaningless. The FAA’s Advisory Circular AC 43.13-1B calls out these minimums, but it also says that this guideline only applies in lieu of the manufacturer’s maintenance instructions (which exist). Engine manufacturers provide a device known as a “calibrated orifice” with a known rate of leakage that is the benchmark for a compression test. Equipped with this tool, you “test your tester” first and note the measurement that is designated “no-go”. Note this calibrated orifice reference number (as read on the gauge) in the logbook entry. This is important because without it, you have no true reference for the compression numbers recorded on each cylinder. Modern compression testers include a built-in calibrated orifice tester. Photo courtesy of Aircraft Tool Supply. While some may disagree, I would argue that compressions are of more value if recorded against the calibrated orifice reading, rather than the input pressure. Let’s say that you use 80 psi as input on your gauge, your calibrated orifice reads 45 psi on the pre-test calibration, and your cylinder test reads 58 psi. The numbers that matter are the 58 psi you measured on the cylinder, over the 45 psi from the calibrated orifice on the test. To me, 58/45 is a far more relevant number than 58/80. This is especially true since the 45 psi orifice reading may change slightly next year depending on conditions and equipment, as would your cylinder compression number along with it (even if nothing changed with the cylinder). Even a “calibrated” cylinder compression number is of little value other than for a manufacturer’s go/no-go number. What matters most is where the leakage is occurring within the cylinder. The most valuable tool you have at your disposal during a compression test isn’t your gauge—it’s your ears. Listening for the source of the air leakage is critical to interpreting the results. During the compression test for each cylinder, listen at the oil cap, intake filter, and exhaust for hissing air. Air noise at the air filter would indicate leakage past the intake valves, noise at the tailpipe points toward leakage past the exhaust valves, and noise from the oil cap indicates leakage past the piston rings. Armed with the severity of the leakage (from the compression test reading) and the source of the leakage (from listening), you can make a plan of action for the next steps in evaluating your engine health and remedying any issues. Leakage past the rings is the lowest risk and has few catastrophic consequences. In fact, with the exception of extremely low compressions, there is no real link between output horsepower and compression. Leakage past the intake and exhaust valves, however, is extremely serious and should be addressed immediately. A modern approach to compression testing gives numbers that actually mean something, and the information we need in order to proceed with more detailed investigation through borescope inspection. We will talk more about borescope inspections next time. Until then, I hope you and your families remain safe and healthy, and I wish you blue skies. AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE: A MODERN APPROACH TO COMPRESSION TESTING The Drip, Drip Of Bad Publicity About 100LL By Paul Bertorelli - Published: February 26, 2023 For the 40-odd years we’ve been trying to eliminate tetraethyl lead from avgas, general aviation has been a target of opportunity for dirty-little-secret headlines. The industry’s amazing persistence in preserving this problem has cost me at least several pairs of shoes trooping to press conferences where the various “stakeholders” offered progress reports we were all expected to believe revealed movement toward a solution. The latest of these is EAGLE, which now sets the goalpost at 2030, another at least seven years away. Meanwhile, yet another poisoning-the-planet story appeared this week in Politico. It checks all the boxes, with most of the right sources and although it has some errors and assigns too much blame to ASTM’s sclerotic grind, it’s generally a fair story. It ignored how Santa Clara County withheld EPA findings about measured airborne lead levels around Reid-Hillview airport and that the Bay Area Air Quality agency stopped lead monitoring because levels were below EPA minimum standards. But a more recent study on blood lead level data showed that irrespective of airborne levels, BLL’s near Reid-Hillview were higher than might otherwise be expected. Read the full study here and decide for yourself. To me, this is compelling enough to merit further review. On the other hand, why? We’ve committed to eliminate TEL yet, at an industry level, we resist it kicking and scratching all the way. The safety argument and entreaties about the difficulty of transitioning are wearing thin. It’s a persistent bad look for the industry that only gives anti-airport forces a potent tool effective with an ill-informed public. I really doubt that Reid-Hillview and other pressured airports in high-rent districts will survive until EAGLE’s aspirational goal of 2030. And California being California, there’s a statewide push to switch more rapidly to unleaded fuels than is realistic. It can’t be done in six months, but it shouldn’t take seven years, either. You may have forgotten that what got General Aviation Modifications Inc. on the road to pushing G100UL across the finish line was George Braly’s belief that EPA’s lead health risk data would propel the agency to require its elimination before the industry had a ready replacement. That’s not the same as saying the health data represented a true risk, just that the EPA would use it as a cudgel. That’s in fact happening, but at a glacial pace. Many owners and pilots, rightly I think, are skeptical of the health risk claims so the ostensible argument to switch is that unleaded fuel is just better for engines. Eliminating TEL from the environment is a socially positive collateral. I can’t prove this. No one can in anything like a long-term, large-scale study. Experience with unleaded autofuel is anecdotal and poorly documented and the Embry-Riddle durability test of G100UL in 2014 was only 150 hours. That’s not enough, in my view, to show large-scale benefits. I think it will take a year’s worth of highly controlled fleet trials over a lot of hours. Promise was on the horizon when the University of North Dakota’s large training fleet was set to switch entirely to 94UL this year. This promised data from a large and consistently operated fleet that, in my view, would have yielded definitive answers on whether—or maybe if—unleaded fuels really do reduce maintenance costs to justify potentially higher costs, at least for 100-octane versions. It didn’t happen. UND’s 100LL supplier made the school a price offer it couldn’t refuse and the school did what any of us would. It stuck with the status quo and is thus a beneficiary of oil companies doing what all companies do: Protecting a market with pricing power against a competitor that has less, if any, leverage. This sort of thing will continue to be a barrier to fielding unleaded fuel in both high and low octanes until the EPA finally publishes rules prohibiting TEL. And that will continue to complicate unleaded fuels gaining rapid market traction. In the meantime, another thing will continue. The slow drip, drip, drip of news stories that paint aircraft owners as self-centered rich kids unconcerned about or unaccepting of their toxic emissions poisoning kids. While you and I may know this as not being true, if the defense of it is another four-letter FAA program that promises salvation in seven years on top of one that was already a $40 million failure, as an industry, we just look pathetic. The best we can hope for at this point is for the FAA (and the alphabets and engine manufacturers) to get out of the way of GAMI trying to field G100UL through a whisper campaign that suggests it hasn’t been tested and we don’t know what’s in it. The FAA knows what’s in it. They oversaw its testing and so did Embry-Riddle. The Drip, Drip Of Bad Publicity About 100LL New math and the unleaded future of general aviation By Ben Visser · February 22, 2023 · You may have heard the story about a young student who took a math test. One of the questions was a word problem about a farmer who had two chickens. The two chickens only produced one or two eggs a day and he wanted to have two eggs for breakfast every day. His solution was to buy two more chickens so that he would have at least two eggs every morning. How many chickens does the farmer now have? The student was quick to analyze the situation and answered four. The next day the student was upset when the teacher marked the answer wrong. The explanation was that the student should have used new math and that the correct answer was 5.89 chickens. This story reminds me of the 100 octane saga going on in general aviation for the last 25 or 30 years, when the need for an unleaded fuel to replace 100LL was first recognized. There were a lot of meetings at ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) and elsewhere, but not much happened for a while. Then Swift Fuels announced it had an unleaded 100-octane fuel, which was basically ETBE (Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether). But the energy level of the fuel was quite low. That, combined with some other problems, led to the failure of that project, with Swift Fuels going back to the drawing board. The FAA and others then formed the Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI), an interindustry task force to develop a 100 octane unleaded avgas. There were a number of candidate fuels that were tested, with experts weeding them out until there was only one left. That included a candidate unleaded fuel from Shell that disappeared after further testing. There was a lot of despair at this time with debate between the FAA and the EPA over who was in charge. The FAA sort of won saying that this was a safety issue and that they needed to handle it. Somewhere in the midst of all of this, the people behind a company called GAMI — General Aviation Modifications Inc. — got to work on the problem. Their first step was to build a very sophisticated engine test cell to help them study the problem and evaluate different candidates. I visited them years ago and was very impressed with their test set up. It was far above anything like it elsewhere. Their work paid off and several years ago they started the certification process for their fuel, known as G100UL. A few years ago they got approval for flight tests with a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) in certain models, then in 2021 the fuel was approved for a limited number of engines, including Lycoming O-320, O-360, and IO-360 piston engines. I was at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2021 when this was announced. Everyone who heard about it was euphoric and relieved that there was a good answer to the unleaded question and that GA would live another day. This was comparable to the four chickens answer. That success was followed in September 2022 when the FAA expanded GAMI’s STC to the entire general aviation fleet. The STC covers “every spark ignition piston engine and every airframe using a spark ignition piston engine in the FAA’s Type Certificate database,” essentially creating a drop-in replacement fuel for general aviation. Several months before the milestone approval for GAMI’s fuel, a group of industry organizations formed another initiative, known as EAGLE — Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions — to solve the 100LL replacement issue by 2030. The EAGLE efforts were recognized in late 2022, when President Joe Biden signed legislation that included $10 million to support the qualification of a suitable fuel or fuels. So far, the FAA has identified four candidates: The GAMI fuel, a Swift fuel, a fuel from Afton Chemical/Phillips 66, and a fuel from Lyondellbassell/ VP Racing. The GAMI fuel is a blend of high octane alkylate and other high octane hydrocarbons. The Swift fuel is supposedly a blend of alkylate plus ETBE and possibly ferrocene, an iron compound. The other two candidates are rumored to be based on alkylate plus MMT, a manganese compound. When I first started at Shell, I liked to read old reports on work that had been done. Several of the reports were on work to find an alternative to tetraethyllead (TEL), the lead fuel additive that is a patented octane rating booster and helps prevent knocking in piston aircraft engines. It seems that most every metal in the right compound worked as an antiknock in spark ignition engines. But research found that lead worked well and the bad side effects could be controlled somewhat. Iron compounds tended to increase wear and foul spark plugs very quickly. MMT, the manganese compound, also fouled spark plugs with a very nice looking, but harmful, reddish deposit. So now I come back to the story at the top of the column. The FAA and EAGLE must decide who to back and promote as the future of GA. The GAMI fuel has a proven record and works well in all tests to date. The Swift fuel has less energy and may contain a spark plug fouling agent, while the other two also may contain spark plug fouling agents that leave pretty deposits. What a tough decision. Which fuel — or fuels — do you think they will support? New math and the unleaded future of general aviation FAA’s new rule will create mLSA By Dan Johnson · February 26, 2023 Note: Graphic information available in the original article. Van’s Aircraft’s RV-15 in flight. (Photo by Van’s Aircraft) Darkest before the dawn? I hear growing concern about the FAA’s new Mosaic regulation and what it will or won’t do. An increasing number of comments I hear are variations of these words: “The FAA is never going to get this done, and if they do, it will be a crappy rule.” Why so glum? Maybe pilots are frustrated because the FAA has delayed the release of Mosaic, which stands for Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certificates. This also happened almost 20 years ago with the Sport Pilot/Light-Sport Aircraft regulation. SP/LSA was anticipated for more than three years after the first announcement. However, Mosaic is coming and this time we know more about it than most regulations. Why? Because the FAA must involve ASTM committee members along the way. Earlier FAA rule writers did not reveal their work as broadly. Yet FAA officials are sufficiently pleased with industry consensus standards, ASTM’s work, that they will use it on the next generation of GA aircraft (think: Cessna, Cirrus, etc.). Mosaic LSA standards can’t be written after the FAA releases the rule because then we’d have even more delay. So, FAA officials provide some details to ASTM and in this way we get some idea of what’s ahead. Here Come the High Wingers Progress continues on Van’s Aircraft’s high-wing RV-15 as Van’s Aircraft personnel actively work on ASTM standards. This gives the company’s engineers details about what is likely under Mosaic. Everyone is guessing, but informed guesses are better than mere opinions. Naturally, Van’s isn’t the only company aware of what the FAA is planning. Any other company or individual who participates on the ASTM committee can know most of the same information. Indeed, this is where I get most of my knowledge about Mosaic. Just recently Sonex unveiled more about its new kit model. The Oshkosh, Wisconsin-based company has NOT done two things: It never sought approval as Special (fully-manufactured) Light-Sport Aircraft — although its kit designs can be flown by an aviator exercising Sport Pilot privileges. And Sonex never made a high-wing design. That’s now changing — here comes “SH.” (See more about the new airplane below). Light aircraft builders in the USA, Europe, Australia, Brazil, and South Africa are preparing aircraft I choose to call Mosaic LSA or mLSA. Let’s have a quick look at six new entries. BRM Aero BRM Aero’s Bristell has become a well-recognized brand, moving up to be one of the top high-end choices in LSA. Despite a diverse line of low-wing designs, B8 is new. It will sold in America by Bristell USA. The Bristell B8. (Photo by BRM Aero) B8 is an all-metal, cantilevered high wing with a steerable nose wheel and 49.2-inch-wide cabin. Like most of the others covered in this article, it can carry more and reflects the industry belief that four seaters — or at least higher weight aircraft — are coming. Czech Republic-based BRM Aero is ahead of many competitors with its high-wing B8 model flying for several months already. This new entry also reflects Martin Bristela taking over the business as his dad, Milan, retires. Jabiru The J230-D is a popular design, but one already approved for higher weight operation and with a roomy cabin that can accommodate four occupants…in Australia and some other countries, that is. Importer Scott Severen of US Sport Planes is preparing to offer a more capacious version. He may rename it and it may be appointed in special ways, but this is an airplane Americans already fly. The Jabiru J230 in flight. (Photo by Bonnie Bartel) What most Yankee pilots don’t know is that Jabiru’s popular J230-D is a variation of the J-400 sold in Australia as a four seater. As such, it already has a tested gross weight well beyond LSA’s 1,320-pound limit. That means the market-proven model is virtually ready for Mosaic and its higher weight allowance. Montaer This Brazilian MC-01 is available in its home country as a four-seat design. It already has a higher weight limit, so when Mosaic is released the task should be fairly simple for Montaer to gain FAA acceptance. The Montaer MC-01. (Photo by Montaer Aeronaves) Recently I flew the Rotax 915iS-powered Montaer MC-01. I hope to report on that exhilarating experience soon, but my flight shows the powerful engine is worked out and ready for larger aircraft. A look inside Montaer’s MC-01 shows how roomy it is and the design presently comes with a third door more than large enough to permit entry to an aft seat. The Airplane Factory (TAF) Ahead of almost everyone (other than BRM Aero) is South African producer The Airplane Factory. Many aviators know this company as its representatives often fly their new design halfway around the globe to show it at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh (before then frequently proceeding to fly the rest of the way around the planet). Several months ago, I reported more about the Sling HW, which had four seats at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2022. A pair of TAF’s Sling HW in flight. (Photo by TAF) TAF has already entered the U.S. market as a kit plane and, like all these bigger aircraft with larger engines, Sling HW is not inexpensive. It sells for $93,306 and takes 1,400 hours to complete. Buyers can pay $31,995 more for a Quick-Build kit that saves 500 hours of work. A fully built model will show these are not 1,320-pound present-day Light-Sport Aircraft. Nonetheless, such mLSA will expand the category. Sonex The Wisconsin kit company’s new SH — for Sonex Highwing — has a 42-inch interior cockpit width at the occupants’ shoulders. The fuselage certainly resembles the low-wing members of the model line. Company officials noted SH features easy entry and exit and offers a “step-in height” that less flexible or older aviators will appreciate. A drawing of the Sonex Highwing. (Photo by Sonex) SH will be easily convertible from dual joysticks to a center-mounted control. Sonex’s SH also offers removable wings. Sonex officials have released new fuel system information and range estimates. SH will carry 30 gallons of fuel. Sonex even boasts that SH will offer aerobatic capability. The design allows aerobatics with two persons on board. Van’s Aircraft As the world’s largest kit aircraft supplier, Van’s always commands media attention. When it introduces an all-new, first-ever design, the company can generate many article and videos. The RV-15 on display at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2022. (Photo by Dan Johnson) Indeed, I wrote an article about the RV-15’s introduction at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2022, “Van’s RV-15 debuts to Oshkosh crowds,” soon after that show. I’ll wrap up this review of high-wing mLSA to come. However, I am positive the six aircraft just mentioned will not be the only entries. More Available This column only covered new high-wing designs, those that have not yet been seen on the market in the hands of owners. Yet many more high-wings are available in the current LSA space. Go to PlaneFinder 2.0 on my site, ByDanJohnson.com, and click the “Wing Position” category to see a long list of high-wing LSA and SP kits. Bigger Yet? Designs from Flight Design and Tecnam suggest some LSA producers will take this even further with full-size four seaters designed expressly for such passenger loads. However, these are not the focus of this website as they may pursue a higher level of government approval than needed for true mLSA types. Stay Tuned Pilots may believe Mosaic appears a long way off. Indeed, I estimate the rule can’t go live before early 2025. In the meantime, as FAA officials deliberate and as ASTMers create fresh standards, the airframers will keep refining their proposed aircraft. FAA’s new rule will create mLSA Foundation Formed To Restore First-delivered Learjet by Matt Thurber - February 17, 2023, 10:39 AM The first Learjet ever delivered, serial number 23-003, has been deteriorating on a ramp at Bartow Executive Airport in Florida and will soon be moved to Wichita for a full restoration. (Photo: Classic Lear Jet Foundation) A group of enthusiasts has formed the Classic Lear Jet Foundation to restore Lear 23-003—the third one built and first delivered. The group plans to move the jet from where it has been deteriorating on a ramp at Bartow Executive Airport in Florida to Wichita for a full restoration. Plans call for flying S/N 003 as a “living flight history program,” according to the foundation. Discussions began a year ago about the possibility of acquiring and restoring 23-003, and the first meeting of the foundation took place in July. The foundation obtained non-profit status in September. Rick Rowe, a former Learjet demo pilot who has logged more than 9,000 hours in various models from the 35 through the 60, is leading the public relations efforts for the foundation. “I’m in awe of [the restoration of the B-29] Doc,” he said. “Now we’re doing a similar thing. I’m so excited about it I can’t believe that I’m getting to be involved in a project like this.” A team of foundation board members and volunteers from Wichita-based supporters are traveling this weekend to Bartow to begin disassembling 23-003. A welcome-home event is planned in Wichita on February 28. Donations can be made on the foundation's website and volunteers and sponsors are welcome. Foundation Formed To Restore First-delivered Learjet Preflighting Propellers By Editorial Staff - Published: February 27, 2023 One way to tell if a pilot is serious about his responsibility to conduct a thorough preflight is if he looks at a propeller, notes that it’s still attached and walks right by it to the other wing’s fuel drains. Even if it’s a relatively simple all-metal, one-piece, fixed-pitch affair, things can go wrong with it. If it’s a constant-speed or reversible model, it also has a lot of parts in the hub that retain and actuate its blades. And it has a tough life. It’s often first to the scene of an incident, for example, and if it’s not properly secured or maintained, it can fail in spectacular ways, throwing blades and shaking engines out of their mounts. A few props have even decided to take the “goodbye, cruel world” route and departed the airplane entirely. It doesn’t have to be that way. Hubs And Spinners In between scheduled inspections and maintenance, the pilot is front and center when determining if a propeller remains airworthy and if it needs attention. It’s not hard to do a thorough preflight inspection on a propeller, but there are a few things you might not be looking for, or even recognize when you see them. One of the first things we need to do before inspecting a propeller, however, is ensure there’s no way moving it can start the engine. With that in mind, you can’t move it if you don’t touch it, or at least if you don’t turn it. Even if with the keys in their pocket, people have been killed outright when the prop being inspected suddenly came to life. The moral is to treat every propeller as if it can start turning at any time. Instead of turning the prop, and with it the engine, propeller pros recommend a four-step preflight test. First, try to move the prop blade fore and aft. Second, attempt to rotate the blade in its hub (fixed-pitch props need not apply). Third, push and pull the blade toward and away from the hub. Finally, try lifting and pushing down on the blade. If you succeed at any of those tasks, have someone competent take a closer look. With that out of the way, the typical GA propeller has a spinner, often a one-piece metal cone secured to a round bulkhead mounted behind the prop. A series of screws attach the spinner to the bulkhead. The screws obviously should be present and secure, something it might be hard to verify without turning the prop. Don’t. Bend from the waist and use a flashlight if needed. Try to wiggle the spinner fore and aft. If it moves, it’s not properly secured. You’re also looking for cracks in the spinner material, especially around the mounting screws. Thanks to wear and tear, older spinners may have slightly enlarged mounting holes; a loose screw may promote so-called “smoking,” where the metal around the screw exhibits a dark gray material. That’s aluminum oxide, a form of corrosion, and it means the screw (or rivet, for other aircraft components) is moving slightly. The same thing can happen between the spinner’s interior surface and the attaching bulkhead’s outer mounting rim. It would be odd for a fixed-pitch prop to exhibit oil streaking—if it does, get a mechanic to look at it—but it’s more likely with a constant-speed/reversible model. If you do spot oil streaks or even a thin film, that’s a possible sign of a cracked hub, or at least a bad internal seal. Again, someone competent should examine it more closely. The vast majority of constant speed/reversible props have spinners installed. Many fixed-pitch props, like the one pictured at the bottom of the opposite page, don’t. That helps you perform a complete inspection because you want to make sure the bolts remain tight and that the safety wire hasn’t been disturbed. Any time a prop’s spinner isn’t installed, like in the image at upper right, is a good time to take a close look at those mounting bolts. It’s also a good time to examine the hub for signs of corrosion. Some hubs may have a high content of ferrous metals, so instead of smoking or white powder, they’ll exhibit plain old rust. Blades Propeller blades are airfoils turned 90 degrees to the oncoming air; they’re flat on the back side and have a curved front side, which is thick at the hub and thin at the tip. Just like a wing, leading edge contamination like bugs, or pitting from rain and/or corrosion, can reduce the blade’s efficiency. As with propeller hubs, blade corrosion is especially problematic. Blades typically are painted with a high-quality coating to help prevent corrosion, and any missing paint will tend to promote it. For that reason, some manufacturers suggest keeping a light coat of oil on the blades. Also for that reason, you’ll spend a lot of time maintaining a polished prop. Run a finger lightly over the prop’s leading edge to check for roughness and corrosion. A cheap terry cloth towel is a good tool here; if it snags on a part of the blade, it’s a good bet there’s a nick that needs to be addressed. Nicks with sharp edges can create a stress riser, increasing the likelihood of blade failure. A mechanic can file out shallow gouges. A lot of foreign material on the blades, or a deep-enough gouge, has the potential to disturb the prop’s balance and increase vibration, which in turn gets transmitted throughout the airframe. Dead bugs or substantial dirt also can promote corrosion. Clean off the blades with an aluminum-friendly liquid, then wipe them down with a light oil. Despite a propeller’s susceptibility to cracking and corrosion, most shops say pilots who taxi into things are their best customers. Pay attention to where you’re taxiing and slow the engine when over gravel or loose pavement, which is how they get nicked and gouged. A decent preflight inspection, plus regular maintenance, means you’ll always have a poorly designed handle with which to move the airplane back in its hangar. Preflighting Propellers Pratt & Whitney Canada Passes One Billion Flight-Hour Milestone By Kate O'Connor - Published: February 27, 2023 Pratt & Whitney Canada announced last week that its engines have now logged one billion flying hours since the company was founded in 1928. According to Pratt & Whitney, it has produced more than 110,000 engines to date with over 66,000 currently in service. The company makes products for segments including business aviation, general aviation, regional transport, rotorcraft and auxiliary power units. “Every second, a P&WC-powered aircraft takes off or lands somewhere on the planet, whether they’re driving commerce, reuniting families, or powering humanitarian missions, emergency medical services, or search and rescue missions,” said Pratt & Whitney Canada President Maria Della Posta. “Achieving one billion flying hours is made possible by the dedicated team at Pratt & Whitney Canada along with our customers, suppliers and the extended P&WC community.” Pratt & Whitney is also celebrating the 60th anniversary of its PT6 engine family. Introduced in 1963, more than 64,000 PT6 engines have been produced so far. The latest version, the PT6 E-Series, was launched in 2019 and features integrated electronic propeller and engine control, along with auto-start, full digital envelope protection and single-lever operation. Pratt & Whitney Canada Passes One Billion Flight-Hour Milestone For New Engineers, DOD Has Many Opportunities Feb. 24, 2023 | By C. Todd Lopez , DOD News | During this year's National Engineers Week commemoration held at the Pentagon, the deputy undersecretary of defense for research and engineering explained some of the opportunities available to young engineers interested in supporting the nation's defense. Note: Important video graphics are available in the original article. For New Engineers, DOD Has Many Opportunities Curt Lewis