skywrench1

Mac flew for NOVA for a few years in the early 90's. I thoroughly enjoyed working with him, he was a flying museum piece as he talked of all the a/c he flew over the years dating from WW II.

Confirm by p/n that you have the correct bleed valve and FCU. I have seen standard C20B units of each installed on C20R's and both caused stalling issues, the bleed valve being the most severe. With the incorrect bleed valve the engine had to be accelerated VERY VERY slowly to prevent stalling. The C20R bleed valve is noticeably larger in size when compared to the C20B unit so it can be easily identified.

I too knew Howie from our days at Kenting - he was my boss and a **** fine one. I have many memories of him, a rather raucous two weeks on the 412 course being a particular favorite. RIP boss. Neil

A different era at SAIT I guess, our project was a C clamp, I still use it today.

You're welcome, :punk: I always say to myself "treat her nice" (thankfully most out there are professional enough that they don't need to be told) as you take her over the fence for the day 'cause she has a long memory and sometimes takes her time before providing that kick in the butt to remind us. Cheers ps: Hmmm... Double post... Dumba$$.....

You're welcome, I always say to myself "treat her nice" (thankfully most out there are professional enough that they don't need to be told) as you take her over the fence for the day 'cause she has a long memory and sometimes takes her time before providing that kick in the butt to remind us. Cheers

From my perspective, CAMC has done little if anything to further the interests of licensed AMEs. Granted they hve been instrumental in getting Shop Techs recognized, but I have yet to meet a Shop Tech that have revieved any additional benefits by being recognized as an actual "trade" The non-licenced trades were the primary objective for CAMC - to provide some sort of standard that a person could present to prospective employees. AME's were way down on the list of priorities as we are already recognized in terms of standards for holding a licence.

In addition to the 212S factor it's understandable considering all components are identified as 210 p/n's and are not interchangable with those from the 212 even though they are the same pieces. Kinda paints you into a corner when you're looking at overhaul and replacement.

If your engine meets or exceeds the 'standard', then you will be able to achieve the weights shown in the "performance" charts of the flight manual. That is how much you can lift!! Well said O.T. While it is "nice" to have a +12 "stump puller", in doing so flight manual performance may well be exceeded even if 100% torque (or Ng as the case may be) was the maximum parameter reached during that excercise. A spec. engine will deliver flight manual performance (which is what we are being paid for) as doggish as it may seem. A sudden radical change needs to be investigated - sometimes there is actually a problem with the engine or it may be a guage problem. Some factors that lead to weird readings are cross wind or downwind vs into wind and bad OAT readings - always try to cross ref the OAT with another source. Nothing like changing the engine only to discover that the OAT guage is reading 5 deg low or better yet you have used the wrong chart for the installation ( particle seperator, snow baffles ect) As Sharkbait has stated, ensure the OAT is accurate and equally important verify your torque and temperature calibrations and if you N1 figures into the equation better ensure that indicator is not the culprit. Also, there better not be any air and heater system leaks, they'll contribute to poor engine performance.

At one time I couldn't spell inginear and now I are won! :punk:

Regarding what size of company to work for, as previously stated, it's a toss up with advantages either way but I would tend to lean to the larger organizations for a more varied exposure. Keep in mind the best company to start off with is probably the one that wants to hire you. As for light versus medium I definitely feel an apprentice (and junior AME) should spend their time on lights. It is a rare individual who can excel on the more complex a/c when they really need to learn how to be an effective AME without the pressure of production work combined with the added workload from both scheduled work and snags. Over the years I can only think of a couple of junior AME's on my crew that would have been able to come even close to competently handling a 212 and after their first season on one they expressed as much and were glad they had a couple of years of lights under their belt. Be patient, take time to learn your craft and if you are any good at all it will be recognized with advancement. Cheers.

While I have no experience with the B3 I do know a B2 will out perform the 355F1 easily so I expect the B3 would blow a Twinstar away. Regarding costs, you are correct the two C20F's aren't cheap but from my experience it would be pretty close to a wash when compared to an Arriel and at least you can buy parts for a 250. They are cheap to buy because nobody wants them, hmmm must be a reason of some sort. While I'm a staunch twin engine guy, my thoughts are unless you have an operational requirement for a one, an Astar would be the way to go as a 355F1 would likely perform to 350BA standards at best and the Twin is a royal pain in the a** on the maintenance front. Good luck

KHP was written off, in '79 or '80 on Victoria Island in a whiteout if memory serves although some of the other Kenting types might be able to fine tune on that.

First 206BIII was ship s/n 2212

The aircraft in deep snow will likely rest on its belly parts among others, like I said, slow! In an Astar ensure your swing isn't pinned agianst your fuel drain Also make sure you don't drive that cargo swing into the belly panel, it makes for an interesting conversation usually about the expense of the repair and how much INSERT LIQUOR OF CHOICE it will really take to slake your engineer's thirst