Those ring sensor are funky. I personally would not use one if I had the regular probes.

8GCBC wrote:

Zzz wrote:

8GCBC wrote:I have (2) boxes of 100 new copper gaskets for sale. I decided not to follow any advice from the engine manufacture and use dirty, bent, torched gaskets.

Actually, maybe not.

I feel like you've chosen the silliest and simplest of false dichotomies to make your stand. The best thing about new gaskets is their shininess. I will not downplay the horror of torched and quenched copper though. It looks hideous against fresh clean Lycoming grey.

Its a Service Instruction. Good luck with your mags! Hope it works out.

I have more than a few thousand hours behind annealed copper gaskets. Only mag problem I've had was due to a broken P-Lead.

A 3800 pound takeoff on a river in a float equipped Cessna 206 is all the proof I need that annealed rings work just fine.

Argue all you want, but annealing spark plug gaskets is probably as old a procedure as there is in aviation maintenance, and it's passed the test of actual experience.

I know, I'm due to fall out of the sky any moment....

MTV

Nice story. Hard to believe. You always are the best.

8GCBC wrote:Those ring sensor are funky. I personally would not use one if I had the regular probes.

Ditto. I replaced the CHT gauge in my C180 shortly after buying it- the old gauge used a ring sensor, but I got a bayonet type probe instead.

http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/spark_p ... View=false
http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=57437956001

I find it interesting that both the EAA and Avweb both refer to the copper gaskets for their sealing properties. Nothing about resistive or grounding properties. Does the service instruction say that they must be replaced for any specific reason? Or does it just say new is needed?
Also, their name, copper gasket, would point to it being a sealing device. Hence the name "gasket".

A1Skinner wrote:http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/spark_plugs_198595-1.html?zkMobileView=false
http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=57437956001

I find it interesting that both the EAA and Avweb both refer to the copper gaskets for their sealing properties. Nothing about resistive or grounding properties. Does the service instruction say that they must be replaced for any specific reason? Or does it just say new is needed?
Also, their name, copper gasket, would point to it being a sealing device. Hence the name "gasket".

The dirty old threads work best for grounding. There, feel better?

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

8GCBC wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/spark_plugs_198595-1.html?zkMobileView=false
http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=57437956001

I find it interesting that both the EAA and Avweb both refer to the copper gaskets for their sealing properties. Nothing about resistive or grounding properties. Does the service instruction say that they must be replaced for any specific reason? Or does it just say new is needed?
Also, their name, copper gasket, would point to it being a sealing device. Hence the name "gasket".

The dirty old threads work best for grounding. There, feel better?

I don't feel any different. There's a lot of talk about these gaskets online, but it's all about proper sealing and torque.
So I'm asking you, does the service bulletin say they need to be replaced for the grounding properties, or where did you get this idea? If the manufacturer strictly says it's because of grounding properties then great. But from what I have read, they are more concerned about sealing and proper torque values.

Well the engine CASE holds the crankshafts... Never mentioned it's the path for the magnetos?

Interesting?

Cute kitty

Since this thread like may found on the internet is mostly if not totally based on opinion, here is mine. As to the ground path, conductivity is based on cross sectional area, if you were to calculate the,cross sectional area of the loaded side of the spark plug thread, I didn't, I believe you would find that it far exceeds that of the gasket. As for the sealing properties of the copper gasket, again just my opinion, I believe that soft copper is chosen for it malleability, and ability for withstand the high temperatures of the spark plug. The high conductivity of heat by the copper gasket as compared to other sealing materials was I believe also a consideration. This brings us to the torque of the spark plug. The NTSB has found cases of engine failure do to a loose spark plug. The ability of the spark plug to transfer heat to the cylinder head is impaired if the plug is loose. This results in the tip of the spark plug overheating, resulting is detonation, which then results in the failure of the engine.

So I will continue to use annealed copper gaskets as long as there is not visible deforming of the gasket. If heated to a proper temperature the formation of steam bubbles at the gasket water interface will remove most if not all of the oxide leaving a clean, bright finish to the gasket.

Tim

bat443 wrote:Since this thread like may found on the internet is mostly if not totally based on opinion, here is mine. As to the ground path, conductivity is based on cross sectional area, if you were to calculate the,cross sectional area of the loaded side of the spark plug thread, I didn't, I believe you would find that it far exceeds that of the gasket. As for the sealing properties of the copper gasket, again just my opinion, I believe that soft copper is chosen for it malleability, and ability for withstand the high temperatures of the spark plug. The high conductivity of heat by the copper gasket as compared to other sealing materials was I believe also a consideration. This brings us to the torque of the spark plug. The NTSB has found cases of engine failure do to a loose spark plug. The ability of the spark plug to transfer heat to the cylinder head is impaired if the plug is loose. This results in the tip of the spark plug overheating, resulting is detonation, which then results in the failure of the engine.

So I will continue to use annealed copper gaskets as long as there is not visible deforming of the gasket. If heated to a proper temperature the formation of steam bubbles at the gasket water interface will remove most if not all of the oxide leaving a clean, bright finish to the gasket.

Tim

I'm good with that. You have a valid point and I respect the research. I would do it if I had the time, and the operator/owner approves the deviation. (various ops would require me to use new, can't change that)

1) Fuel
2) Compression
3) Spark = good ground

If I wasn't such an a$$ sometimes, this would have been a better thread

Thank you for all the concerns

Carry on men. Let's get done some flying and enjoy what we have!

Never did see you as being an a$$ gcbc, and just to reinforce what you have said there is no way I would reuse a gasket in a 135 operation. A buddy I mine had to replace the door pins which were fabricated from stainless welding rod in his vfr 135 172 with approved, traceable parts after a fed noticed them on a base check. Just not worth the hassle.

I actually found this thread interesting, and not that this applies to this thread, but I have told people for a long time that just because an answer is the popular one doesn't mean it is the correct one.

Have fun with the Scout, hope to get to work on my Scout project one of these years.

Tim

bat443 wrote:Never did see you as being an a$$ gcbc, and just to reinforce what you have said there is no way I would reuse a gasket in a 135 operation. A buddy I mine had to replace the door pins which were fabricated from stainless welding rod in his vfr 135 172 with approved, traceable parts after a fed noticed them on a base check. Just not worth the hassle.

I actually found this thread interesting, and not that this applies to this thread, but I have told people for a long time that just because an answer is the popular one doesn't mean it is the correct one.

Have fun with the Scout, hope to get to work on my Scout project one of these years.

Tim

"Roger that". Call on me anytime you are out my way, I owe you a flight!

bat443 wrote:Never did see you as being an a$$ gcbc,

Don't encourage him.

bat443 wrote:and just to reinforce what you have said there is no way I would reuse a gasket in a 135 operation.

Is that because you're afraid you'd have to explain it to a lawyer some day as he tries to pin the irrelevant practice on you to prove some sort of incompetence, and it would play out similar to this thread? Versus for your personal use as you stated you do a few posts above?

Zzz wrote:

bat443 wrote:Never did see you as being an a$$ gcbc,

Don't encourage him.

bat443 wrote:and just to reinforce what you have said there is no way I would reuse a gasket in a 135 operation.

Is that because you're afraid you'd have to explain it to a lawyer some day as he tries to pin the irrelevant practice on you to prove some sort of incompetence, and it would play out similar to this thread? Versus for your personal use as you stated you do a few posts above?

When you apply for a 135, an operation specification (OPS SPEC) manual is presented to the FSDO. Generally it will require maintainance using Lycoming Service Instructions, to be approved. At our shop the FSDO is across the ramp. The FAA can (and does) stop in unannounced. They can ask for anything.. Even a piss test. They can pull your 135 Cert for any item in violation.

Now the cost of starting a small 135 is about $500,000 (two Navajos, manuals, insurance etc).

I was actually asking bat443, hence my quoting.

Zzz wrote:I was actually asking bat443, hence my quoting.

He is busy on the telephone so I'm fielding questions, Us Scout guys stick together.

Zzz,
8gcbc has the right answer, but I wasn't on the phone, I was taking the snowblower off the lawn tractor, putting the mower on and mowing the grass. I would not want to have a problem with an FAA Maintenance Inspector who walked into the hangar while I was installing previously used annealed gaskets on a part 135 airplane when the approved maintenance manual to be used with that 135 certificate called for the use of a new gasket. This could result in a number of consequences, ranging from the grounding of all of the aircraft on that 135 certificate until the gaskets could be replaced with new, to revoking the certificate until retraining of all of the mechanics approved on the certificate in the proper procedure to be used. Now if you had a, lets say, a more experienced Primary Maintenance Inspector who had general aviation experience prior to joining the FAA, and who had used previously used annealed spark plug gaskets, you might have a chance of getting the use of annealed gaskets approved on your part 135 aircraft. Lots of work for a change that would cost you more money than using new.

I am not afraid of the litigation exposure of using annealed gaskets in my own aircraft, I have an A&P with an IA but choose to only work on my own aircraft. That is because I am afraid of litigation from a pilot error accident. It seems that anyone associated with an aircraft will be included in the law suit even if maintenance was not a factor. The cost of a defense would be several thousand dollars even if found not liable.

The one point that has not been mentioned in this discussion is the pure economics of new vs used. The cost of new ranges at a popular aircraft supply from $0.29 to $0.69 each depending on brand, That means a set of 12 would cost between $3.48 and $8.28. At shop rates of $60 to $100 per hour I am going to guess that it would cost 4 or 5 times as much to reuse rather than new. Easy to see why maintenance shops choose new.

Tim

Yes, and Part 135 pilots in Alaska are required to complete and document "training" in the installation and removal of passenger seats in air taxi airplanes.

the fact that the FAA requires something of a 135 operator isn't necessarily a good justification for a particular practice.

There are reasons to reuse copper gaskets. Tossing perfectly good copper into the landfill makes no sense when a couple minutes with a torch can anneal fifty of the things......

I imagine that the OP here follows all part 135 procedures to the letter with his personal plane?

MTV

mtv wrote:Yes, and Part 135 pilots in Alaska are required to complete and document "training" in the installation and removal of passenger seats in air taxi airplanes.

the fact that the FAA requires something of a 135 operator isn't necessarily a good justification for a particular practice.

There are reasons to reuse copper gaskets. Tossing perfectly good copper into the landfill makes no sense when a couple minutes with a torch can anneal fifty of the things......

I imagine that the OP here follows all part 135 procedures to the letter with his personal plane?

MTV

Well no. I don't have an operation specifications manual sitting at the FSDO either.

I think we can leave with that agreement.