Having flown around the world myself (Mooney M20K, following Amelia Earhart’s route in 2017) I have received queries from several young people wanting to set “youngest” circumnavigation records. I detail the issues I had with weather, getting fuel, systems failures, and the like, which challenged my almost 50 years of flight, maintenance, and avionics experience. (You name it, I experienced it.) I also point out that success and doing this well today, while still a challenge regardless of your age (I was 63), is not the same level of accomplishment that it was 80 and 90 years ago. I counsel them to spend the time to gain experience to reduce the risk and increase the probability of a successful circumnavigation, but absolutely don’t do it to set a “youngest” record. It’s not worth your life.

Every manufacturer or other potential sponsor of such stunts should memorize this article and send copies to the parents and anyone else trying to promote them.

If only it were possible to inject truth serum into some past record holders and find out about the negative aspects of these stunts instead of just the “I made it” statements when (if) they got home.

The article can also apply to youngest-solo-sail-around-the-world stunts, which are even dumber than the flights.

It is true that risk taking has made many of the important advances in human endeavors. But there is no reason to push such activities onto the youngest possible participants. Especially when its principal effect serves only to confer bragging rights.

I think we’re probably in the realm of diminishing returns when it comes to aircraft noise reduction, particularly in jets and helicopters. Reasonable measures and noise abatement procedures are ubiquitous and modern jet engines are so quiet you can clearly hear the noise generated by the airframe itself. It has been interesting looking at development material for engines, including noise reduction measures and design features, in my career as an engineer in the gas turbine industry. Engineers of the 40s and 50s would be impressed at what has been done in the name of efficiency and noise reduction.

Having read through complaints filed about noise at a couple of my local airports, especially at the local private jet serving public airport, there is a pattern of repeat complainers who have written in a manner that could best be described as hysterical. A couple of them seem to complain every time a plane flies over their houses. I have even heard of complaint about the mosquito control helicopter noise, a relatively infrequent flyover of an old Huey at night during peak mosquito season. Some people are impossible to please and would settle for nothing less than the closure of the airport, and the sad thing is that these airports I’m speaking of are almost guaranteed to predate the arrival of every single resident around them (1941 and 1936).

One thing not mentioned is: Torque of fasteners.

At the 1000 hour mark on our Glasair, I checked the torques of all major fasteners. (A Super-Inspection, if you will.) I was kind of shocked to find that the engine mount bolts took a quarter turn each.

I am 99% sure that I tightened them correctly during construction. Because they were all cotter-pinned, the nuts could not have backed out. So either 1) the bolts had stretched (unlikely, since we never did aerobatics) or 2) the fiberglass or resin (or both) shrunk.

I think it’s the latter. The Vinyl Ester resin used in the Glasair was known to shrink during cure. (Cited in the Assembly Instructions as a Feature.) Apparently it never fully cured at room temp. (It had a Tg a little over the Boiling Point, if that matters.)

For example, after our first Phoenix summer, we could see the fiberglass weave standing out in our fairings, which had been painted red and so became hot to the touch in the sun. So it seemed to me that, given the heat in the cowl, there might be some shrinkage at the fiberglass engine mount attach points too. (The attach points were a 10 ply layup of all fiberglass. No foam core that could crush.)

At the 4000 hour mark (when we sold the plane) I checked some of the torques again. Except for the wing mount attach fittings (which passed through hard foam), all the other fasteners were fine. (I think that the hard foam had crushed a little, especially since the countersunk screws bore directly on the glass/foam and could pull in.)

Perhaps epoxy is different and doesn’t shrink. Regardless, if I were buying a used Composite aircraft, I would check a few major fasteners for torque and go from there. (Because there still might be fasteners that go through hard foam or the like.)

Owners would be wise to apply 303 or another Sun protectant on composite aircraft. I used a different product on my Diamond, and I’m sure there are several good products available.

Log in to leave a comment