Introduction to #1000

[DaveF]

i've got the SB, but I'm still curious. My installed venturi is not placed per the SB (it's higher), and I'm trying to decide whether to relocate it or leave it as is and just install the second.

What I'm really curious about is whether Cessna ever did any testing to find the optimal placement and angle for the venturis.

[gfeher]

Bill,

From one rusty aviator to another, welcome back! I'm sure that you're having a heck of a good time like me getting back into the seat! Beautiful plane.

I have a '52 B model with the original legs. From your pics, like Arash said, it appears that you have the original legs (the telltale splay), not that it matters for W&B as Bruce pointed out.

I completely agree with Bruce about how your W&B records can be incorrect. When I did my first annual after I bought my plane a little more than a year ago, I discovered that a reputable shop got it wrong when that did a comprehensive W&B report for the 2012 annual. It relied on a previous re-weighing report that it thought was done in '83 but was actually done in '56. (They relied on a number that they thought was the date of the report -- but wasn't.) So they didn't account for over 25 years of changes. In going back to the beginning to create a correct report, I found other W&B errors by other mechanics as well, including a basic math error in the '56 re-weighing report. So if my records are any indication, errors in W&B records can be pretty common.

With respect to the two W&B graphs you mention, they are different because the units of the horizontal axis are different. The horiz axis of the TCDS graph is in inches, the horz axis of the owner's manual graph is in "units" of total moment (i.e. moment/1000). If you convert one to the other, you will find that they are consistent. As the total weight decreases, the total moment decreases as well even though the forward CG limit is the same -- giving the left slope in the envelope of the owner's manual graph. I made the same error looking at the two graphs when I was running W&B scenarios shortly after I bought my plane. If I calculate W&B for my plane solo, only reserve fuel, 1400 lbs total (I'd need to weigh only 69 lbs -- that will never happen), I'm still within CG limits at around 39" forward. At full fuel, pilot and front seat passenger only, I'm just within (barely) the forward CG limit. So your W&B reports might be off somewhere. Hopefully re-weighing will correct things.

I hope this helps.

[gfeher]

I should have mentioned that I'm a big guy - 6'4", 270 lbs, and I used my actual weight, along with 200 lbs for the right seat passenger, in calculating the CG for the second scenario, which would push the CG toward the forward limit. From your pics, it doesn't look like you are as big. So I would think your CG should be within the forward limit at full fuel, pilot and one passenger.

[wabuchanan]

Blueldr: I stand properly and humbly chastised. You are right sir! I don't know what I was thinking, but most likely was unduly influenced by my "better half"..
I will say however, that she has come around and is 100% supportive of my current endeavors, for which I am truly thankful.

Bruce and Aryana,
Thank you. I have looked at all the info and agree with everyone that I have the original landing gear and that the previous W&B's are not done with the right ARMS.
I took the plane up today for 1.6 in typical Northwest weather of rain/wind/ and limited but legal visibility to become acquainted with the new prop and tires. My calculated CG with the new current numbers put me at just forward of the Forward center of gravity. After flying I went back to the shop and discussed the ARM's and we will be re-weighing and re-computing the weights per the TCDS/AFM etc. Thank you for reinforcing what I thought was going on as well.
I did reprogram the W&B Program on the iPad to bring the graph parameters from 1700 down to 1500 and it works just fine as I mentioned in a previous post.

Dave,
I will have a look and see if I can get a better pic. I start a 48 hour shift tomorrow so it will be a couple of days.

gfeher,
Thank you sir for the input. I am 195 and my usual front seat passengers are 190-200. I think with the re-weigh and calculations it should put me back on the right side of the graph.

Now, for George and Aryana,
I'm sorry, but I did move up to 8.50 x 6 tires
I was going to just upgrade to 8.00 x 6's, because the grass strips up here are rough. I was tightening up screws after every other flight and bumping down the runways. I went to 8.50's because I am on original gear and not 180 gear and I put the 80/42 prop on the plane. I have 14 inches clearance with tail level. Our grass strips can be very wet and soft, and have lots of gopher mounds/holes. I also plan on flying to our one Beach airport in WA fairly often and wanted the bigger tires for that, even though I see regular planes landing there as well. I loved landing on those tires today. Soft and cushy LOL!

I'll post performance figures in the other prop thread that has been going on.

Thanks again for all the help and advice!

PS: Jughead, if you are reading this.....I'm reeeaally really sorry.....I couldn't wait for you to get back. I had to try out the plane today. Yes, I am seriously impressed with the prop! My eyes were as big as you predicted

[Kyle Wolfe]

What prop did you take your 7653 for?

[counsellj]

PS: Jughead, if you are reading this.....I'm reeeaally really sorry.....I couldn't wait for you to get back. I had to try out the plane today. Yes, I am seriously impressed with the prop! My eyes were as big as you predicted [/quote]

Good! I look forward to flying it soon.

We didn't make it to Texas, but we had a good two days in Vancouver, If you don't count the trying to drive around that dang city part.

My oldest has been wanting to fly, so hopefully the next two days we get up and have some fun.

Jughead

[wabuchanan]

Kyle,
I got very lucky and found a new 80/42 for a wholesale price. Still very expensive, but worth it for me. I am keeping the 76/53 and wheel pants for that time when my stewardship of this fine aircraft comes to an end so the next owner can decide for himself/herself which way they want to fly the plane.

Jughead,
Awesome, have fun! We'll be in touch!

[Metal Master]

(Quote) I also plan on flying to our one Beach airport in WA fairly often and wanted the bigger tires for that, even though I see regular planes landing there as well.

A few things if you are talking about flying out to Copalis beach:
If you have not landed on a beech before get someone to at least give you a thorough briefing about which part of the beech to land on. For example not the Wet sand and not the Dry sand and not to far north or south. I have recovered aircraft off of Copalis beech from knocking the landing gear off on a rock. Knocking the landing gear off in a tide pool. Swiming the aircraft off of the beech, A real mess. Sinking the aircraft in wet sand with full people on board. Miring the aircraft in dry sand and having to use vehicles, ropes digging and boards to get it back to firm sand. Take ropes and some short planks with you in case you make a mistake. I also watched some one try to take off through the tidel pools at the south end of the beech, they were not successful however did manage to get the aircraft back to firm sand before the sunk it in the ocean. Check the tide charts, the beech can get real narrow and you want to know when to leave.
After landing on the beech whether you get the gear into the wet sand or not plan on repacking your wheel bearing within a couple of days after having been to the beech as if you do not your wheel bearing will freeze up. Plan on washing the airplane within a couple of days having been to the beech it will be covered with a fine salt spray. We always washed the aircraft immediately upon arriving back at home base after having flown to Copalis. Watch out for people walking on the beech. They do not know it is a state airport and will think you are making an emergency landing. Local residents sometimes complain. Take food because it is a long walk to the resort if it is still there. Take water because it is a long walk to the resort.
I have always had fun at Copalis beech no matter why the reason I was there. I have been there more times recovering aircraft than going there for a picnic. My friends and I do not go there any more simply because at the end of the day we are to tired to take care of the airplane. But we did have fun. We did it at least once a year in the past.

[lowNslow]

Do they still let you land at Monterey Bay Acad.? I have landed there many times years ago but heard they did not want anyone landing there anymore.

[lowNslow]

Thanks Aryana, it's good to know they are operational again.

[wabuchanan]

MetalMaster,

A Great write-up, thank you! I won't be flying out anytime soon as I am still learning the plane/rebuilding my flying skills, and will be at that stage for quite some time yet. I also have been watching the reports on the FATPNW page on Facebook about the problems out there with locals laying logs across the runway and putting in rock cairns and what have you.

It seems to be getting a lot of attention lately which is very unfortunate. My wife and our family spend several weeks each summer on the WA and OR Coasts, as we love it out there. So flying to Copalis was a natural for me to consider when buying the plane. Have also been studying all the airports up and down the OR coast to learn the pros/cons and precautions of each. I am a serious kite flyer in the summers on the beach so any airport that puts me within walking distance of a beach is fair game I have a bunch of kites I can just throw in the back and take with me.

I may pick your brain for more info in the future, as well as some of the more seasoned flyers from FATPNW. ( Flights Above the Pacific Northwest, for those not from this area )

Cheers,
Bill

[Slfurst]

Just read about your 170 and thought you might like a little more history on it. I believe the original owner was Samuel Blanc in Des Moine, Ia ( the inventer of the roto-rooter machine and company. ) He was in his late 60s when purchased it and flew it for about 10 years. My father purchased it to replace our champ that he was teaching my older brother to fly in. He majored the engine and we stripped the original minimal dark GREEN paint and used a newer design in light GREEN, and black over white. 76C originally had a crosswind gear. I started building time at 14 soloed her on my 16 birthday in 1963. The following year my dad installed a tow hook to pull a glider, that at 13 my sister ( Debby Rihn-Harvey) started learning to fly in. He sold the airplane in later part of the 60 to finish rebuilding a Bonanza. Our family had many fun trips and memory's with old 76C. I have kind of kept track of her through the years and is still a very good looking airplane.

[counsellj]

Wow, Thanks for staring part of her history. No wonder she flies so well, she was taught by a great flying family. I'm sure Bill will be on here soon to add his comments. The tow hook is still with the airplane, but not installed.

Jughead

[Ryan Smith]

That is too cool!!

Seriously jealous, Bill.

[wabuchanan]

What a great post! Thank you for that!

In reading the logs I knew the plane had seen the first half of its life in the midwest, and the southwest too I believe. The history of the first owner is awesome to know! I will go back through the logs and re-read the era you are talking about. I had read before I bought the plane about the tow hook, and every time I pre=flight the plane see the hole in the tail for the cable.

That particular history has interested me since I first read it! Thanks again for filling me in! It is a delight to fly, and I am enjoying it a lot. I'm in it every chance I am getting between these Northwest storms this year.

I might pick your brain in the near future if you don't mind