|
I posted a thread in Ask/Tell a week or two ago but no one responded: Is anyone in here an AME? I am going to school in the fall to become a AME and I was wondering if anyone could share their experiences about the training and what it is like to work on the job.
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
AME as in Aero Medical Examiner? Isn't that just something docs do to make extra dough? Every AME I've ever been to has been a family practice doc who does medicals on the side. I can't imagine it being too terribly hard since it's really just a cursory physical exam. The most involved my guy ever gets is breaking out the blood pressure cuff.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 20:11
|
|
|
iqarus posted:well there's his problem, those bastard engines explode/catch on fire/spin bottom end rod bearings with monotonous regularity. I think you might be confusing engines? The basic VG30 is very reliable and was the Nissan workhorse from about 1983 to not all that that long ago in one form or another. The only thing that they had issues with IIRC was valve buckets ticking and the odd exhaust manifold issue. I don't recall any bearing issues with them at all and I've owned a couple and had many friends with them that abused the hell out of them (Zs in particular). I seem to recall a company selling Subaru 2.5 engines modded for aircraft duty. Ninja Edit: Not the link I was thinking of, but thought it might be of interest to some. http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index_files/Page404.htm slidebite fucked around with this message at 21:04 on May 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 20:54
|
|
|
No no no AME = Aircraft Maintenance Engineer!
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 21:01
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:High power settings? A Cessna Skyhawk will cruise all day at 105 knots and the Lycoming up front only makes 160 horsepower. Meanwhile the new 5.0 Mustang engine can put out 400 horsepower, and part of the testing cycle is subjecting the engine to exactly what you said it isn't designed to do: hundreds of hours under load at near-redline. So that Mustang engine ran at maximum load for hundreds of hours? I doubt that. Now that I think about it, I really only know of one auto engine that was designed for a duty cycle suitable for an aircraft - the air-cooled VW flat-four. Apart from this engine, all other auto engines adapted for aviation use (and I harshly include the Thielert and Austro diesels in this category) have been merely novelties. For all that people rip on the old Lycoming and Continental engines for being old and utilising archaic technology, they do a good job powering aircraft in a reliable manner. When you actually start tearing into the design of these engines, you'll actually find the attention to detail in the design is pretty remarkable. Since you can only turn a propeller so quickly before you begin to lose efficiency, you either need to include reduction gearing (which is expensive, heavy and often unreliable), or design the engine so that the crankshaft drives the prop directly (chief among the traits this entails is the large displacement of the engine). Since this entails a high-displacement, slow-turning engine, rotational forces and pressures are relatively low. This allows you to use lighter and thinner materials in the construction of the engine. Combined with air cooling, you end up with a remarkably light powerplant. A Continental TSIO-550-C is a 550 cubic inch, twin-turbocharged flat six aircraft engine that produces 350 hp, and weighs approximately 500 lb as a complete, running engine (including all ancillary systems like alternators, vacuum pumps, turbochargers and intercoolers). The new 5.0 Mustang engine produces 400 hp and weighs 430 lb. Add in the weight of all the accessories, the weight of the liquid cooling system and the reduction gearing the 5.0 would need to be suitable for an aircraft and you'll be well above 500 lb. Then of course there is the issue of such things as camshaft drive, ignition system design and several dozen other regulatory details that are needed in a certified aircraft engine as opposed to an auto engine. And even though the cost of implementation is very high (as production numbers are low) both Lycoming and Continental are adopting automotive-type technologies into their engines. Such things as EFI, FADEC and cross-flow heads are in active service today, and other ideas are being researched actively by both companies. Ola posted:The next big thing is of course diesel. The first to hit the market properly was Thielert, R.I.P. Underpowered, overweight and critically reliant on electricity to run the FADEC - utterly failing to capitalize on the inherent advantages of a diesel. The two (or was it just one? don't remember) in service in Norway suffered multiple cooling, mechanical and software problems. One in Sweden had a complete electric failure during (if I remember correctly) a student's first solo x-country. He had to land in a fairly built up area and came away with minor injuries and no small amount of kudos for the feat. The biggest failing of the Thielert engine was it never came close to matching the economic promises the manufacturer made. The prop clutches had to be replaced every 300 hours (these clutches are what prevent torsional vibrations from the crankshaft from shattering reduction gears and propeller blades), and after 1500 hours, the engines needed to be replaced; overhaul was not an option. Even then, some operators found the 1500 TBR to be very optimistic. As icing on the poop cake, Mercedes-Benz (the supplier of the engine Thielert modified) decided it would no longer manufacture that engine, putting Thielert in the uncomfortable position of not having any engines for sale (or replacement). All of this combined to scare away many customers (and infuriate existing ones). Diamond Aircraft, who had originally intended that their DA-42 Twin Star trainer be exclusively diesel powered, was forced to not only redesign the DA-42 to use conventional Lycoming IO-360s, but to form another company (Austro Engine) to build and support a replacement diesel engine for existing customers. Even still, I can't see Austro succeeding with their AE300 engine either; although many of the technical issues plaguing the Thielert engine were resolved, the Austro is hamstrung by the fact that it is still a Mercedes engine - they could pull the plug on that engine at any time and leave Austro hanging. MrChips fucked around with this message at 22:33 on May 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 22:25
|
|
|
MrChips posted:So that Mustang engine ran at maximum load for hundreds of hours? I doubt that. But going by the specs being posted about aero engines, an auto engine in the same application would be running around 50% load and rpm for the same output, which would drastically decrease wear on them.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2010 03:31
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:But going by the specs being posted about aero engines, an auto engine in the same application would be running around 50% load and rpm for the same output, which would drastically decrease wear on them. Less than 50% rpm actually. Actually slightly less than highway cruising RPM for many cars. And Mr Chips, my argument has only been about reliability. I maintain that modern car engines can reliably put out the power needed in most GA aircraft pretty easily. Going back to my example of the Cessna 172: 160hp. It's not using 160 hp the whole time, that's just the max output of the Lycoming O320. In reality, by the calculations I ran for a cruising weight of 2200 pounds (about 200 pounds below max takeoff) and speed of 105 knots, you're only using 80-90 horsepower. And that was assuming a stupidly inefficient wing (e=0.5) Thanks to propeller efficiency the engine itself is putting out about 100 horsepower. Power requirements scale with the cube of velocity, so despite the engine being able to output 60% more power, the top speed is still only 122 knots. Honestly, 80-100 horsepower at 1,300 RPM? That's pretty slow for a car engine, granted, but just choosing a better match for the propeller would allow you to bump it up to 1,800-2,000 RPM and then you're right in the power-and-speed sweet spot for highway cruising. And how often does a car engine need an overhaul when doing nothing but highway cruising? How often are aircraft engines supposed to have an overhaul? Back to the Lycoming, that's an overhaul about every 2,000 hours. That's the equivalent of about 140,000 miles for a car engine at 70 mph. Yeah, that's pushing it for a car engine, but quite a few make it that far with nothing but the prescribed fluid (and belt) changes. Considering how babied aircraft engines are just from the normal prescribed maintenance, I really, really doubt that reliability is an issue for car engines on airplanes. Now, you make the weight argument, that's perfectly valid. I'm not disputing that, although the weight is so close in your example that in the end you can throw out a passenger, luggage, or some fuel to sacrifice range (in the right places not to upset the CG of course) But reliability? Like I said, that idea is a holdover from the days when car engines were struggling to make aircraft levels of power and your dad had to tinker with it every weekend to keep it running under normal road conditions.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2010 04:11
|
|
|
One of my birds from my base: Click here for the full 1024x735 image. 92-1536 Just got its propellers upgraded from 4 blade to 6 blades. Got this off of Airliners.Net, I'll see if I can grab a picture of her from the shop. This was the first C-130H I got to work ISO on
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2010 04:18
|
|
|
I think the big sticking points with auto engines are the complexity of their systems, a lack of redundancy in their systems, and the lack of a guaranteed parts supply. Owners of Mooney PFM and Diamond DA-42 aircraft found out the hard way that when the automotive engine supplier no longer wants to provide parts there's nothing you can do.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2010 04:58
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Less than 50% rpm actually. Actually slightly less than highway cruising RPM for many cars. You've missed the point of my argument completely. I'm not disputing your statement that there are car engines that can produce that kind of power as reliably as an aircraft engine, what I am saying is that there are no auto engines that can produce a similar amount of power without making serious compromises in other areas, such as weight and packaging. A Mustang engine will no doubt make 100-160 horsepower day in and day out, but compared to a Lycoming O-320 (which makes the same power), it carries almost a 300 lb. weight penalty when you factor in the cooling system, accessories and the like. For engines of a similar power, we look once again at the Diamond DA42 Twin Star. The 168 hp, Austro-powered DA42-NG weighs nearly 400 pounds more empty than the 160 hp, IO-360 powered DA42-L360, and has lower single-engine and all-engine climb rates. Even enjoying the advantage of a 250 pound increase in takeoff weight for the DA42-NG over the -L360 and the increased energy density of Jet A over 100LL gasoline, mission weights still favour the -L360 variant on all but the longest flights, which translates into more payload over a given distance. Higher mission weights also increase tire, strut and brake wear, and may contribute to structural problems in the long-term. Another example of auto engines being adapted for aviation use, only to find them compromised is the failed Porsche Flugmotor project. In the early 1980s, Porsche decided to adapt the 911's air-cooled flat six for use in an aircraft. While the engine did have some advantages (the engine electronics allowed for "one lever" operation, and the engine-driven cooling fan prevented shock-cooling of the cylinders), it was found that the even with a 30 to 40 horsepower advantage, a PFM-powered Mooney M20 was 5-10 knots slower than its O-360 powered cousin. This was because the O-360 powered Mooney was able to harness the energy of the hot air passing through the cowling to offset the drag of cooling the engine, whereas the Porsche engine was not capable of doing that. In addition, the bulbous cowling of the PFM-Mooney added drag, and the additional structure to support the Porsche engine (nearly all Lycoming and Continental aircraft engines use three engine mount points, the PFM had four) added a considerable amount of weight. VVV Here in Canada, aircraft mechanics are called AMEs (Aircraft Maintenance Engineers) - the rough equivalent to an American A&P. MrChips fucked around with this message at 05:22 on May 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2010 05:00
|
|
|
DiscoDickTease posted:No no no AME = Aircraft Maintenance Engineer! Are you an American? Because I've never heard it called that before. Anyway, from what friends that are mechanics have told me it's really the safest job in aviation. Which means there is still no job security, but it's still safer than being a pilot. Little stuff like Cessnas and Pipers and such are pretty basic and don't require much in the way of formal training, but bigger biz jets and airliners will usually require actual classroom and practical training to learn the ins and outs of those aircraft. Just like being a doctor, though, specialization is what gets you the big bucks. The company I work for is always looking for good avionics techs because they're hard to find and those they do find need to be highly experienced, but they make really good money. Even becoming an expert on a particular aircraft can lead to good jobs. We do lots of outside MX on Lear 20 and 30 series jets because our mechanics are so good at diagnosing and fixing those aircraft. Basically if it's old or obscure you can make good money at fixing those types because not many people will know how. Be prepared to spend about a hojillion dollars on tools though, since the specialized tools required to take apart an Airbus would make Ferrari tools jealous.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2010 05:13
|
|
|
No I am a Canadian. That is the only term I hear mot of the time. My course is a 2 year program, then 2 year on the job. Once I have done those 4 years, I can write my Transport Canada exam and become a fully licensed AME. I can't even loving wait. I have loved planes all my live and love to work on poo poo. I figure it would be the most ideal job I could ever have.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2010 06:50
|
|
|
DiscoDickTease posted:I posted a thread in Ask/Tell a week or two ago but no one responded: Is anyone in here an AME? I am going to school in the fall to become a AME and I was wondering if anyone could share their experiences about the training and what it is like to work on the job. I've been toying with joining this forum for years and I guess your post pushed me pushed me over the edge. Where are you going to school? I've been an AME for only ~3 years, so I'm not too bitter yet... Some days it's the best job in the world, some days it really sucks. I think the one thing they can't teach you is working under extreme pressure. I've worked heavy maintenance for a couple years and am now on the line; they're very different jobs. VOR LOC is right, there's demand for avionics and unless you're a natural bush man, the money is in M2 transport category aircraft (which is still pretty crap). Having said that, I've found that one doesn't really get to choose whether they get into M1, M2 or helicopters, base or line maintenance, bush work or hangar work; it chooses you. The Canadian aviation industry is pretty small so you end up working wherever they'll take you. Plumbers, electricans, auto mechanics routinely make more than a certifying engineer at a big airline. You gotta really like airplanes, as there's surely easier ways to make a living. There aren't many getting into this trade right now, so your (our) opportunities will only get better as the old timers retire. Here's some pics:      Not pictured- the overpowering stench of human poop. Some for the Herc guys (buy bigger hammers!):      There's more from work that should probably go in the Horrible Mechanical Failures thread... smooth jazz fucked around with this message at 10:18 on May 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2010 09:37
|
|
|
I am going to Centennial College out in Scarborough. Where are you located? Somewhere in Western Canada by the looks of it. Dudeman at the open house said I should be making no less than $60,000 and up to $150,000 or more.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2010 16:28
|
|
|
tripsevens posted:Is this guy asleep?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2010 22:31
|
|
|
DiscoDickTease posted:Dudeman at the open house said I should be making no less than $60,000 and up to $150,000 or more. 60k is high, but hopefully there will be another boom when you graduate. No idea where one can make 150k in this; I'd like to know! My first job was at Cascade Aerospace doing heavy checks for Hercules and 737s. An apprentice starts at $15, by the time you're licensed and endorsed the wage is 25-27 per hour and stays there for a long time. A crew lead with 20+ years makes about $36 Air Canada is about the same, Westjet is a bit less. Of course you're not limited to Canadian companies; you'll have the opportunity to travel all over the world... But hey, it's not about the money as long as you have more good says than bad days! Yes I'm out in Vancouver with Cathay Pacific and well, we're definitely paid below the industry standard but at least it's stable.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2010 23:57
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Is this guy asleep? We found the C-130 radome in its shipping crate is good for a make-out sesh.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 00:01
|
|
|
I want to stay in Ontario. I love it too much here. I want to live in the Barrie area and get myself a 26' boat from the 1970's. I have a plan all figured out. The head guyface said that we should expect at least 60k. I am only going on what he said. Plus I saw something on a gov.ca type site saying that about 60k is the average income for that career type.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 00:07
|
|
|
tripsevens posted:
Awesome.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 01:30
|
|
|
Trying to land a U-2 is a loving bitch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eamnTyfkUBY
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 02:54
|
|
|
DiscoDickTease posted:I want to stay in Ontario. I love it too much here. I want to live in the Barrie area and get myself a 26' boat from the 1970's. I have a plan all figured out. The head guyface said that we should expect at least 60k. I am only going on what he said. Plus I saw something on a gov.ca type site saying that about 60k is the average income for that career type. Yeah never trust what a recruiter says. They can say the sky is blue and I'd still check. The average sounds right, but remember it's still an average, you're probably going to make less than that starting out. I'd doubt pretty seriously that you'll ever make 150 as a line mechanic. As a manager or something maybe but never as a wrench turner.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 02:58
|
|
|
Well yeah I could see that (the manager thing). I still look forward to fixing them there planes!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 05:06
|
|
|
superdylan posted:
I got an email back from the photographer: quote:Yes, two drag racing engines both supercharged will be run at a lower power
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 19:36
|
|
|
DiscoDickTease posted:I am going to Centennial College out in Scarborough. Where are you located? Somewhere in Western Canada by the looks of it. Dudeman at the open house said I should be making no less than $60,000 and up to $150,000 or more. I'm graduating the program at Centennial College in a few weeks (just finished my final classes today actually, exams start next week). I was afraid you were going to say Centennial from your first post. The program is what you make of it, you can learn a lot of theory, and some of the teachers are great, but you won't get much from the hands on stuff if your already mechanically inclined. The planes you get to work on in the hangar are in very good shape, missing enough pieces that you can't even fully do the projects that are laid out for you. If your like me and want to try to fix up some of the planes when your finished projects early, you won't be able to find hardware in stores because there isn't anything useful/ fits and they won't buy parts to replace the broken ones because there are students who don't care and just break things; ruining it for the ones who do care. With that said, I don't want to discourage you, like I said you can learn a heck of a lot of theory, and there's some great teachers that will teach you as much as you want to know if you show the initiative. But you won't get the full value of the hands on stuff because of the state the planes are in. I know exactly who told you the wage numbers, from what I gather from some people in the industry, they aren't far off once your licensed. Your going in at the right time though, changes are coming to the program supposedly, so things might be a little bit different next year. Plus by the time you graduate the job market should open back up again. I went in at the wrong time and can't find a job anywhere, sent out 40 resumes and have heard back from one company but it's not very promising. Also, unless you're very luck or know someone, jobs are always hard to come by in the GTA, go north (way north) or west for a few years get your license and then come back. If you want I can give you some more information, just ask.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 23:11
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:Trying to land a U-2 is a loving bitch Jesus christ, what a BITCH to land! My Maintenance chief was an avionics guy on U-2s for years before coming to our little guard base
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 23:28
|
|
|
herman391 posted:I'm graduating the program at Centennial College in a few weeks (just finished my final classes today actually, exams start next week). I was afraid you were going to say Centennial from your first post. The program is what you make of it, you can learn a lot of theory, and some of the teachers are great, but you won't get much from the hands on stuff if your already mechanically inclined. Yeah I would love some more info! Fire away to bentley432 at hotmail
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 00:11
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:Trying to land a U-2 is a loving bitch This video perplexes me. It seems like only some of the landings have the wing mounted wheels down. Where are they on the other landings?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 01:02
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:This video perplexes me. It seems like only some of the landings have the wing mounted wheels down. Where are they on the other landings? They might have been fixed on there for practice landings. They fall off at takeoff during missions.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 01:07
|
|
|
Originally the U-2s took off with outrigger wheels that dropped away as soon at it was in the air, but then they landed they let the wingtips hit the ground when landing. I believe the wingtips are solid titanium caps, so I don't think they really care.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 01:09
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:Originally the U-2s took off with outrigger wheels, but then they landed they let the wingtips hit the ground. I believe the wingtips are solid titanium caps, so I don't think they really care. Just dust em off, put some radar absorbent paint on and its ready for the next mission
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 01:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Just dust em off, put some radar absorbent paint on and its ready for the next mission
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 12:03
|
|
|
I had two Warthogs and a BUFF fly right over my work today. And I got to see a bunch of WWII birds flying around today. It turns out that Warbirds Over Addison is going on this weekend, so any north Texas goons may want to check it out tomorrow. http://www.cavanaughflightmuseum.com/2010_warbirds_over_addison.html
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 02:52
|
|
|
See something new every day, Some idiot made a bomb threat on one of our flights coming into Vancouver. CF-18s were scrambled to escort the plane into YVR.  (not my pic) RCMP and bomb sniffing dogs searched and found nothing, tuned out to be a hoax. The schedule was resumed after a ~4 hour delay. Not a whole lot to add that hasn't already been in the news...
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 20:15
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2010 13:53
|
|
|
Are those mothballed blackbirds? At least they didn't just dump them out in the desert somewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2010 14:22
|
|
|
I wonder if they wouldn't survive the desert as well as a "normal" aircraft. They've already been recalled once, though I don't expect them to come back again. Googling that tail number brought up some weird stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2010 16:07
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:The hawaaaafappest hawaaaafap to ever aaaa, haw, and fap. Edit: VVVV OK, it's still pretty hawaaaafapworthy. Sexual Lorax fucked around with this message at 22:50 on May 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2010 16:16
|
|
|
Nothus posted:Are those mothballed blackbirds? At least they didn't just dump them out in the desert somewhere. No, they're not mothballed Blackbirds, they're mothballed A-12s. There are a number of differences between the A-12 and the SR-71; most notably, the A-12 was a single-seater, and it is thought that the A-12's sensor suite was far less capable than that of the SR-71. Once the SR-71 entered service in 1968, the CIA retired their fleet of A-12s.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2010 21:57
|
|
|
Last Friday we finally did something useful in my Aircraft certification/production class and took a field trip to Afton WY. The Aviat factory is there, where they make huskies (no not the dog, the piper cub look-alike) and Pitts acrobatic planes. You wouldn't know it if you drove by since its a bunch of gray buildings next to main street Afton. (sorry lovely cell-phone cam pics)  Click here for the full 2048x1536 image. Husky Skeleton!  Click here for the full 2048x1536 image. wooden wings they thankfully don't install anymore. That particular pair came off an aircraft damaged during Katrina.  Click here for the full 2048x1536 image. husky-in-progress. Metal paneled fuselage, fabric covered wings with a lycoming turning a constant-speed composite prop. I like the digi-camo paint scheme   Click here for the full 2048x1536 image.   Click here for the full 2048x1536 image. doesn't show but the interior floor is wood paneling which looks classy. You can get either round dials or a Garmin G600 with backup instruments.  Click here for the full 2048x1536 image. Hmm this doesn't look like a husky  Click here for the full 1536x2048 image. Oh that's why   Click here for the full 2048x1536 image. two wings are better than one  This week we're taking another field trip to the Boeing factory in Everett, let me know if you guys want pics (hopefully with a better camera).
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
It's not a Tu... It's actually a dH-Comet instead. With some kind of bizzare radar-testing attachement, apparently.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 17:39
|
|