Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

First Emergency (Long Post)

0 views
Skip to first unread message

A Lieberman

unread,
Jul 20, 2003, 2:11:03 AM7/20/03
to
Thought I would share my first emergency....

I was flying from MBO (Madison MS) to L31 (Covington LA) to meet my
sister for dinner, and get some night time hours on the return trip. I
have done this trip many times.

Left Madison at 5:00 p.m. with an expected arrival at 6:15. I am
starting my IFR training, so figured to really focus on holding altitude
and heading working on "precision flying". I was doing great all along
the trip, and looking ahead, saw major buildups in my path. Called
122.00 and asked for an inflight advisory. Weather was moving SSW and
though close, they said I should make my destination. Little did I know
the weather would be the least of my concerns.

15 miles from my destination cruising at 3500, I got a horrible
vibration throughout the engine. First thing I did was put the carb
heat on. Made the vibration even worse. I held the carb heat for about
10 seconds, and turned it off. Immediately saw a "target farm field"
should I need it and never let it leave my sight. Next, switched tanks,
no change in vibration. Next fuel pump, no change. Next, checked my
mags, left, then right, no change in vibration.

Next, turned to 121.5 and said, This is Sundowner 12345L declaring an
emergency, anybody monitoring the frequency. As I am doing this, I am
setting myself up for the "best glide" speed of 78 knots. Guard
responds with Sundowner 12345L, go ahead with your emergency. I replied
back, I have an extremely rough running engine, I am 12 miles from
destination, I have an alternative field in site should I need it, I
will be sqawking 7700. I then turn the transponder to 7700. In this
short time, I lost 500 valuable feet altitude.

As I reduced my power, and enriched the engine, trying different "power"
settings, I noticed the vibration reduced somewhat. I watched my VSI,
and noticed that I was able to "maintain" a 200 foot descent. Quick
math in my head said, I had "15 minutes" flying time if I left my
configuration the way it was, and now I was 10 miles from destination.
121.5 gets New Orleans approach, and New Orleans approach gets on 121.5
and tells me to squawk 4026. I acknowledge New Orleans approach, change
my transponder to 4026, and said to New Orleans approach, that I have a
stable 200 foot descent rate, engine is running rough, and my intentions
is to proceed on to L31. Once I made my decision, I pretty much left
what I had going alone. 4 miles out, I said "New Orleans approach,
Sundowner 12345L request to change to 122.80. New Orleans approach said
frequency change approved, please call FSS to let us know you are safe
on the ground. I said Sundowner 12345. will call FSS after touchdown.
I set the radio to 122.80, called in Unicom and said, St Tamminy
Sundowner 12345L declaring an emergency, inbound for runway 18 straight
in approach. In my nervousnous, New Orleans approach says, Sundowner
12345L, you are still transmitting on 121.5. Duh, helps to change the
button from Com 1 to Com 2. So, I switch coms, and repeat my broadcast.

2 miles out, see that I am way too high for straight in, I decided
instead of a straight in approach, that I would enter on the downwind
leg, and proceed to use runway 36 to lose my altitude. I announce on
122.80, Saint Tamminy, Sundowner 12345L declaring emergency, changing
intentions, entering downwind for 36. I left my power settings the way
I had it, for the first half of downwind, and then abeam the numbers, I
reduced the power ever so slowly, and also enriched the mixture ever so
slowly. Engine got rougher, but kept running. Trimmed for landing,
extended first set of flaps, and the second set of flaps on downwind. I
did this so all I had to do was realy concentrate on flying the plane
for base and final rather then "finess the plane". Kept my downwind
closer to the runway then normal and turn base much sooner then normal.
On final, I was 1200 feet above field elevation. On final, I heard that
little voice say, better to hit the trees at the end of the runway then
the beginning, so I made sure, that I had a higher then normal approach.

Seeing I was way high, I put in full right rudder, full left aileron,
and pretty much turn the plane perpendicular to the runway. Slip worked
great, ears starting popping on descent, and when I cleared the trees,
turned forward. Saw I was still too high, returned to the slip, for
another 5 to 10 seconds, and then straightened out. Cross the numbers
about 25 feet AGL, speed, just above glide speed, cut the throttle to a
fast idle. I get major vibration in the engine Started to lower the
nose, felt my speed increase, and then raised the nose. Hit ground
effect, halfway down the runway, ballooned to about 5 feet above the
ground, I raised the nose to bleed off the speed, landed on the last
third of the runway. Runway is 2999 feet, so I knew I wasn't stopping
at the end of the runway, applied firm brakes, rolled off the runway,
with the yoke clear to my chest. I was able to stop about 50 feet after
leaving the end of the runway in hard ground with about knee high
grass.

Engine was really rough, I turn around and limp back to the ramp,
airframe and gear fully intact. Go to shut down, and the engine did not
want to shut down. It finally shut down. My brother in law was waiting
for me at the airport (he is a pilot), we decide to start up the engine
to see if he could figure out the problem. Engine was rough on idle,
tried to increase RPMs, but the best we could get is 1800, so we shut
down.

We start calling A&P's around the area, and finally found one that could
come out the next day. After describing the symptoms, first thing she
thought was a fuel related problem, and asked me the usual questions,
did I sump, did I see water, and so on. Nothing in the fuel, I told her
runup was absolutely normal.

She pokes around the engine, pulling all fuel related hoses, saw lines
and screens were clear, so next, she pulled the prop through and found
that a cylinder lost all compressions. So, now the obviouse occurred,
now to find why.... She pulled the cylinder out, and after opening the
cylinder, we saw an unbelievable sight. Piston head had shards of metal
pounded in it from the exhuast valve, even more amazing was the cylinder
walls were smooth, and rings remained intact! She suspected that most
of the exhaust valve was ejected out the exhaust pipe as she found
fragments of metal through the exhaust manifold but very little in the
intake portion of the engine. Problem "solved" so we thought, replace
the cylinder, and off I go.

She comes back the next day, installed the cylinder, changed the oil,
leak tested the engine and closed the cowling, she wanted to go up with
me, as she had never been in a Sundowner. It is dark by this time, and
while she was getting her tools together, I preflight. I taxi to the
runway, call unicom to advise that I was backtaxing to 36. The runway
has a runup area at the very end of the runway, I do the runup, all
looks good. I get to the end of 36, and the A&P says, before departing,
I need you to do a full throttle test. I hold the brakes, put the
throttle full forward, and only get 2200 RPM. POH requires 2700. She
says, lean it a tad, see what happens. No change to RPM. Lean it more,
EGT and CHT goes up, engine starts running "normal rough". Needless to
say, not good. She says taxi back to the ramp. No flying tonight. We
taxi back, we pull the cowl. She says, the engine is acting like it is
getting too much hot air for the RPMs not to go full throttle,
reverifies the duct work, and all looks good. Last thing to look at is
the carberator as the engine was purring like a kitten, just could not
get 2700 RPM. We called it the night (11:00 p.m.)

She said, I had a better chance at winning the lotto then what happened
to me. The carberator was the top of the line carberator, and she said
in the 19 years she has been an A&P, she has never pulled one from an
engine. So, today, she pulls the carberator, and she tears it down.
She noticed that the lever to the throttle would not push full forward.
It would go it's full range. She felt that due to the severe vibration,
something in the carberator shook loose, and is preventing the full
extension of the throttle cable. So, now I need a new carberator put
in.

Seeing the forest through the trees, I figure the outcome was as good as
it got, considering the catastropic engine problem I experienced.

One thing I cannot thank my instructor enough was to instill the "what
if scenarios", as when it really happened, I heard him in my mind say,
make a decision, stick to it, but most importantly FLY THE PLANE.

The only thing I could not do during this entire episode is to pull the
POH for emergency procedures. I found as the real thing happens, you
don't have time to pull a book, find the chapter, and go to the list.
My first instinct was to do what I could remember (I studied my POH big
time when I bought the plane, and refer to it frequently, to be sure I
know what to do) and FLY THE PLANE.

I have an emergency checklist seperate, but in reality, the time it
takes to pull the list, get yourself oriented, you lose very valuable
time when you are in the plane by yourself. It may have been different
if I had a passenger, but when I was alone, I relied on my memory.
(which as it turned out was not so bad *smile*.

I could have possibley diverted to another airport in Slidell LA in
"gliding range" with a longer runway, but the thunderstorms that I saw
were over that airport, so I ruled out trying to make it to that
airport.

In "hangar" talk, I asked some pilots, should I file an ASR report. It
was split down the middle, some said yes, some said no. I am leaning on
filing a report.

I have not gotten the final cost in yet, since the carberator needs to
be ordered and installed, but I think I am looking at close to $3000.00
after all is said and done for parts and labor. I may get a small
rebate should the company be able to re-use the cylinder (not likely
from the damage I saw).

Allen

spa...@nowhere.com

unread,
Jul 20, 2003, 12:36:47 AM7/20/03
to
I had a stuck valve cause a lot of vibration and power loss once.
Lucky me, I was on the ground when it happened. Thanks for the post.
Glad you made it out safe. $3k is painful but you walked away.

Eric

Jay Honeck

unread,
Jul 20, 2003, 12:43:48 AM7/20/03
to
Great post, Allen. Glad everything worked out okay.

Just for the heck of it, I'd file the NASA form. Even though you did
absolutely nothing wrong, there is no reason NOT to file one. And, if for
some bizarre reason someone got a bean up their butt about something, you'd
have your "get-out-of-jail-free-card" in your hip pocket.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Peter Gottlieb

unread,
Jul 20, 2003, 12:47:02 PM7/20/03
to
There's also the statistical value of a report of a mechanical failure which
did not result in a NTSB reportable incident.


"Jay Honeck" <jjho...@NOSPAMmchsi.com> wrote in message
news:86pSa.102464$N7.12511@sccrnsc03...

G.R. Patterson III

unread,
Jul 20, 2003, 1:19:49 PM7/20/03
to

A Lieberman wrote:
>
> Thought I would share my first emergency....

Great job - sounds like you didn't miss a thing!

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

markjen

unread,
Jul 20, 2003, 4:34:28 PM7/20/03
to
Allen, first off, you did great. I would be pleased if I had done so well.
So don't take this as anything but monday-morning quarterbacking.

I think your story illustrates that you don't want to get so absorbed in a
emergency that you end up having an accident for something unrelated to the
condition that caused the emergency in the first place (in your case, almost
overshooting the runway). This is very common in twin-engine failure
scenarios - the pilot shuts down an engine still making decent power but
running poorly, then botches the approach, overshoots the runway, and
stalls/spins in the single-engine go-around.

The general rule-of-thumb in engine-running-poorly scenarios is to assume
the insurance company owns the airplane at the first sign of trouble, then
fly the airplane using the engine for whatever its got left, to as normal a
landing as possible at the nearest airport with plenty of runway and good
weather.

It is very likely that your engine would have continued to make reasonable
power for many, many minutes after the initial failure, perhaps
indefinitely. (There are lots of reports when folks have been over water,
had an engine drop an exhaust valve, and then flown for hours.) So my
advice would be to continue to fly the engine at whatever power it took (or
would make) to get to the nearest airport with a reasonable runway and good
weather. Then fly a normal approach and land, just as you always do. IOW,
keep things as normal as possible.

- Mark


A Lieberman

unread,
Jul 20, 2003, 8:32:28 PM7/20/03
to
markjen wrote:

> Allen, first off, you did great. I would be pleased if I had done so well.
> So don't take this as anything but monday-morning quarterbacking.

Hi Mark,

I appreciate your Monday morning quarterbacking, as I have been doing it
myself.

> I think your story illustrates that you don't want to get so absorbed in a
> emergency that you end up having an accident for something unrelated to the
> condition that caused the emergency in the first place (in your case, almost
> overshooting the runway).

You are right, not to get so aborbed in the emergency. When I saw that
my initial approach into 18 wasn't going to happen, I broke off the
approach and just moved to the downwind side of runway 35, and "flew the
plane". The engine at this point had been running rough for 15 minutes,
and not knowing if the noise would stop, I figured altitude was my
friend. Knowing I was not getting full power, a go around was not an
option, so my goal was to make the field. Like you said, the plane
belongs to the insurance company should I bend it, and I figured hitting
trees at ground speed rather then airspeed in the air would be better
for my hide.

> The general rule-of-thumb in engine-running-poorly scenarios is to assume
> the insurance company owns the airplane at the first sign of trouble, then
> fly the airplane using the engine for whatever its got left, to as normal a
> landing as possible at the nearest airport with plenty of runway and good
> weather.

When I was inbound to Covington, I had three choices for airports,
Slidell (kasd), Covington (l31) and Hammond (hdc).

When the cylinder ate the exhaust valve, Slidell I ruled out immediately
due to the proximaty of the thunderstorm. Flightwatch had reported
thunderstorm in vacinity when I got my inflight briefing 10 minutes
before. I could see the rainshaft was about 5 miles to the east of the
Covington airport.

Hammond is about 23 miles to the west.I considered this airport as I
knew it had a much longer runway. I ruled this out, as I did not know
"exactly" where the airport was in relation to where I was (I knew to
head WSW, but this was not good enough for me), and in my mind, "fly the
plane" did not include fiddling with the GPS. In addition, with a 200
foot loss per minute, I wasn't sure if I would had made the airport.
Since I had Covington in sight just about 8 miles out, and I had been
here many a times, I figured, not to fix what worked in the past. I
knew exactly in the terrain where the airport was.

> It is very likely that your engine would have continued to make reasonable
> power for many, many minutes after the initial failure, perhaps
> indefinitely. (There are lots of reports when folks have been over water,
> had an engine drop an exhaust valve, and then flown for hours.)

20 minutes was long enough for me *smile*. After seeing the damage to
the cylinder and piston head, and experiencing the vibration I did, I am
amazed the engine ran as long as it did.

> advice would be to continue to fly the engine at whatever power it took (or
> would make) to get to the nearest airport with a reasonable runway and good
> weather. Then fly a normal approach and land, just as you always do. IOW,
> keep things as normal as possible.

The main reason I flew a higher approach was simply I did not know if
the noise would stop. When I rewind the events, I would have extended
my downwind for about 10 seconds more. I knew I could lose altitude,
and had I extended the downwind, and had a longer final, I would have
done some shallow S turns to lose altitude.

Something I did not consider, was that maybe in downwind, I should have
done those shallow S turns to lose some altitude, but in my mind, I was
focused on making the field. Once I knew the field was made, I figured,
slip it down and work with what I got. Looking back, technically, the
only thing I know I did "wrong" was to lower the nose over the runway.
I recognized it real quick, but in that short time, I lost valuable
runway real estate.

If you go to http://www.airnav.com/airport/L31, you can see that off
field options were not that many around this airport. I was able to
stop and turn around in the grass before the white area on the north end
of runway 18. My wheels I believe touched down just north of the
"runway 18 aim points".

After I get my plane back, what I will do for sure is practice more
"power off" short field landings.

Allen

MikeM

unread,
Jul 20, 2003, 10:11:47 PM7/20/03
to

A Lieberman wrote:

> After I get my plane back, what I will do for sure is practice more
> "power off" short field landings.

I make about 75% of my landings essentially "power off". If I ever have
to
do it for real, I will have done thousands of them by then.

The difference might be the drag caused by a windmilling propeller
with an engine making no power at all, or a locked up engine with a
stationary prop, versus what happens with the engine at idle. Kinda
hard to simulate the first two.

MikeM
Skylane '1MM
Pa22/20 Pacer '00Z

noah

unread,
Jul 21, 2003, 2:57:18 AM7/21/03
to
Hi there,
I have to disagree with the previous post... While I only have 75
hrs, I've been reading as many NTSB reports and rec.aviation.* posts
for quite some time. If I were in that situation, I hope I would do as
well.
The OP said he had to make it 12 miles - this is 6min going
120mph. I'm guessing (total guess) that he was going <= 120mph. I must
say - 6 min of very rough engine (one cylinder blown) would pretty
much freak me out, and I would expect silence at any moment.
As for going off the end of the runway - at least in the fun
browsing state on eBay (pure fun, I promise!) I'm amazed at how many
airplanes have been involved in 'incidents' running off the runway.
Usually there is no excuse other than pilot error - and most of the
time (reported anyway) it involves significant damage to the nosegear,
prop, cowling, possibly engine mount, etc.
In this case, there was no damage, and the OP 'pulled the yoke all
the way back' for good soft-field technique. The combo of this and low
speed is probably what saved the plane from damage.

In summary: Allan - you did everything from training, flew all the
way to the ground, walked away, and (nice job) didn't break anything
in the acft that wasn't already damaged in the engine.

Blue Skies,
Noah

clyde woempner

unread,
Jul 21, 2003, 10:39:43 PM7/21/03
to
Nice job & thanks for the post.
Clyde

"A Lieberman" <lieb...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:3F1A32...@myself.com...

e.drucke...@verizon.net

unread,
Jul 21, 2003, 12:17:59 PM7/21/03
to

On 20-Jul-2003, "markjen" <mark.je...@comcast.net> wrote:

> It is very likely that your engine would have continued to make reasonable
> power for many, many minutes after the initial failure, perhaps
> indefinitely. (There are lots of reports when folks have been over water,
> had an engine drop an exhaust valve, and then flown for hours.) So my
> advice would be to continue to fly the engine at whatever power it took
> (or would make) to get to the nearest airport with a reasonable runway and
> good weather. Then fly a normal approach and land, just as you always do.
>
> IOW, keep things as normal as possible.


I generally agree with your advice, except for your last statement. In the
world of "as normal as possible" under VFR, one would typically approach the
destination airport at or near pattern altitude in order to blend in with
the traffic flow. In Mark's case, he had greatly reduced power, and it is
not clear that he could have maintained altitude in a traffic pattern. In
my opinion, he handled the landing portion just about right: arrive over the
nearest usable airport at as high an altitude as possible. From that point,
total power loss -- a very real possibility at any moment when the engine is
already running very rough with vibration -- becomes almost a non-event.
From that high perch, you can circle the field until you reach an altitude
from which a power-off approach is a "sure thing". Use flaps and/or slips
(as Mark did) to adjust glide path for a normal speed touchdown maybe 1/3 to
1/2 of the way down the runway. As Mark pointed out, going off the end of
the runway at relatively slow speed is vastly preferable to hitting the
trees short of the approach end.

Any time engine power is questionable in a single, the last thing you want
to do is voluntarily give up altitude until the landing is "made". The one
exception would be to avoid entering IMC.

-Elliott Drucker

Ron Natalie

unread,
Jul 21, 2003, 2:24:11 PM7/21/03
to

<spa...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:tv6khvs10aq84fu2d...@4ax.com...

> I had a stuck valve cause a lot of vibration and power loss once.
> Lucky me, I was on the ground when it happened. Thanks for the post.
> Glad you made it out safe. $3k is painful but you walked away.
>
That's what happened to me as well. I've still got the piston and cylinder
around as a souvenir. Blasted a hole right through the top of the piston.


Montblack

unread,
Jul 22, 2003, 1:37:02 AM7/22/03
to
(A Lieberman wrote)

> Thought I would share my first emergency....
> <snipped>

> So, today, she pulls the carberator, and she tears it down.
> She noticed that the lever to the throttle would not push full forward.
> It would go it's full range. She felt that due to the severe vibration,
> something in the carberator shook loose, and is preventing the full
> extension of the throttle cable. So, now I need a new carberator put
> in.


Huh? Oh, welcome back to earth. Good job with the emergency!!

Now, back to the carb...huh?

I'm amazed that what's wrong with your carb, or the linkage, can't be
repaired. Something is binding? --- unbind it. I'm not an A&P, and I didn't
tear down the carb, but ouch, 3 grand for a new one. What "exactly" was the
culprit.

Did a piece of metal, formerly known as exhaust valve, make it upstream
(like a salmon) all the way into the carb - jamming the linkage? :-)

For 3 grand, I have one word for you - Gumout. ($1.75 this week at NAPA)

Seriously, what is the final word on "specifically" what in (on) the carb
failed - thus totaling the entire unit?

--
Montblack


Judah

unread,
Jul 22, 2003, 8:26:19 AM7/22/03
to
How exactly does one determine during flight that his rough-running engine is
caused by a dropped exhaust valve as opposed to something more serious that
would not last very long if left at full power?

"markjen" <mark.je...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:o1DSa.94413$GL4.25751@rwcrnsc53:

> Allen, first off, you did great. I would be pleased if I had done so
> well. So don't take this as anything but monday-morning quarterbacking.
>

<snip>

Mark

unread,
Jul 22, 2003, 8:51:43 AM7/22/03
to
A Lieberman <lieb...@myself.com> wrote in message news:<3F1A32...@myself.com>...


Sounds like you did a fine job thinking it through as you handled the
situation. I got my commercial training around there many years ago.
Drop me an email if you have time. I wonder if some of the people I
knew are still there Mark

john smith

unread,
Jul 22, 2003, 9:43:32 AM7/22/03
to
Judah wrote:
> How exactly does one determine during flight that his rough-running engine is
> caused by a dropped exhaust valve as opposed to something more serious that
> would not last very long if left at full power?

There's the rub, as the saying goes.
I have heard two schools of thought with regard to troubleshooting a
serious engine vibration problem.
One is to move all the levers and switches and determine if this or that
can be isolated as the problem.
Two is to not touch anything, the theory being that whatever you do will
make the situation worse. Fly it to the nearest suitable landing site.

John Galban

unread,
Jul 22, 2003, 12:10:58 PM7/22/03
to
"Montblack" <33mo44nt...@77wa88ve99front.com> wrote in message news:<3f1ccbb5$0$173$a186...@newsreader.visi.com>...

>
> I'm amazed that what's wrong with your carb, or the linkage, can't be
> repaired. Something is binding? --- unbind it. I'm not an A&P, and I didn't
> tear down the carb, but ouch, 3 grand for a new one. What "exactly" was the
> culprit.

I got the impression that the $3K covered the piston, cylinder, carb
and the labor. That's probably a bit on the expensive side, but not
outrageous.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

markjen

unread,
Jul 22, 2003, 1:01:10 PM7/22/03
to
> How exactly does one determine during flight that his rough-running engine
is
> caused by a dropped exhaust valve as opposed to something more serious
that
> would not last very long if left at full power?

No hard/fast rules. The general rule of thumb would be to check for
confirming signs of imminent failure (oil pressure, cyl head temp, etc.) and
if you have confirmation that the engine is about to suffer a general
failure, then you probably want to consider a forced landing. But
otherwise, and assuming the vibration isn't so bad as to threaten engine
mounts and the like, continue to push the engine for what you need to get to
the nearest airport while maintaining altitude.

In this case, a GEM would have been a nice thing to have. It would have
shown that one cylinder had failed and the others were still making power.
It would have confirmed the the rough engine was basically because one
cylinder was off-line. With this confirmation, you'd be confident to push
the remaining three cylinders as hard as necessary to get to an airport.
I'd bet that this engine probably would have run for several hours with
enough power to maintain altitude. I'm not aware of a dropped exhaust valve
failure that has caused complete and immediate engine failure. These
engines are old technology, but they're incredibly tough with great reserves
of basic strength. Almost all cases of complete engine failure are fuel and
eletrical, not mechanical.

But we're all second-guessing. Allen did great. My only comment was a
general one: Be aware that many accidents are when pilots become so
pre-occupied with a minor emergency (which I'd rate this as) that they turn
it into a major one. Allen was so pre-occupied with conserving energy to
make the field that he almost had an accident due to an excess of energy.
This is just something we all need to watch for.

- Mark


A Lieberman

unread,
Jul 22, 2003, 9:43:26 PM7/22/03
to
Montblack wrote:

> Did a piece of metal, formerly known as exhaust valve, make it upstream
> (like a salmon) all the way into the carb - jamming the linkage? :-)
>
> For 3 grand, I have one word for you - Gumout. ($1.75 this week at NAPA)
>
> Seriously, what is the final word on "specifically" what in (on) the carb
> failed - thus totaling the entire unit?

Monthblack,

The throttle cable was fine, and from the outside, the lever that held
the throttle cable looked fine. It was when you pushed the lever
forward (full throttle) that the movement was restricted. The part was
not accessable, to see what may have bent, inside the carberator.

The carb float was fine, not compromised, the butterfly valve (I guess
it is called that), that controls the flow to the carberator was clean,
and not gunked up.

Bottom line is that the carberator damage was secondary to the cylinder
damage from what I could see. I seriously doubt I had an salmon in the
engine :-) though considering the odds of what went last week, one just
may wonder.....

Keep in mind, I am not a mechanic though.

Allen

A Lieberman

unread,
Jul 22, 2003, 9:46:01 PM7/22/03
to
John Galban wrote:

> I got the impression that the $3K covered the piston, cylinder, carb
> and the labor. That's probably a bit on the expensive side, but not
> outrageous.

John,

You are correct that the price will cover cylinder, piston and
carberator, and I thought the price was much more then reasonable,
considering the A&P had to travel one hour drive each way).

Job this major is for sure not exactly convienent "in the field".

Allen

0 new messages