What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Slick 500 Hour Inspection

D

dekagram

Member
Can anyone recommend a shop in or around New Orleans that can perform the Slick 500 Hour Inspection?

Thanks in advance...

N72GS
 
I'm sure there is a good shop near you but Aircraft magneto Service in Washington does great work, is a terrific guy with many, many years experience and a hoot to chat with, get tech help from.
 
dekagram said:
Can anyone recommend a shop in or around New Orleans that can perform the Slick 500 Hour Inspection?

Thanks in advance...

N72GS
Click to expand...

I just had mine done at Crossfire in Loveland Co. and they came back as if they were brand new. The service was very quick, they did a great job and were very accomodating in any questions I had regarding the re-installation or any thing else. Highly recommend this place.
 
The cost of the Slick manual and the two tools you need to do the job yourself is less than $50.00 Very easy to do and you get to learn something new:D Ha! I should have been a Hip Hop "artist" instead of an aircraft mechanic!:cool:
 
Mike H said:
The cost of the Slick manual and the two tools you need to do the job yourself is less than $50.00 Very easy to do and you get to learn something new:D Ha! I should have been a Hip Hop "artist" instead of an aircraft mechanic!:cool:
Click to expand...

$50, are you sure?

3.3 500-HOUR INSPECTION
Follow instructions in Section 5.0, Removing Magneto from
Engine. All procedures needed to perform the 500-hour
inspections are detailed in Section 6.0, Magneto
Disassembly and Section 7.0, Magneto Assembly.

2.0 REQUIRED TOOLS
T-100 Assembly and Timing Kit includes:
P/N Description Qty
T101 Bearing Assembly Plug 1
T102 Rotor and Frame Assembling Plug 1
T103 Oil Seal Assembling Plug 1
T106 Puller 1
T117 Base Adapter Plate 1
T118 Timing Pin 1
T119 Bushing, Adapter Plate 1
T121 Bearing Puller (2 Halves 1
T122 Wedge extractor 1
T123 Timing Plug 1
T125 Assembly Fixture 1
T150 "E" Gap Gauge 1
T151 Cam and Rotor Set 1
T152 Spacer 1
T153 Alternate Cam and Rotor Set 1
T155 Rivet Gauge 1
T509 Spacer (included with T125) 1
 
I have the T-100 tools and have never found it necessary to use to do a 500 hour check. Unless the seals are leaking I wouldn't pull the rotor. Mainly one is checking the timing, for evidence of arcing, the condition of the cam, follower and points, the egap, and the condition of the impulse coupling pawls and rivets. I guess I don't understand why people make this complicated.
 
rocketbob said:
I have the T-100 tools and have never found it necessary to use to do a 500 hour check. Unless the seals are leaking I wouldn't pull the rotor. Mainly one is checking the timing, for evidence of arcing, the condition of the cam, follower and points, the egap, and the condition of the impulse coupling pawls and rivets. I guess I don't understand why people make this complicated.
Click to expand...

Pretty much exactly what Bob said. I don't have a copy of the manual in front of me now but I do not recall having to use any of the referenced tools except the T-150 E-gap timing tool during the inspection unless you find a problem with a bearing or a seal. I honestly do not see why most people do this inspection on a Slick mag, they will usually tell you when they have a problem. In the very few cases where you have a complete failure of a coil or a condensor you usually either had lots of warning prior, or it happens really fast and an inspection that was performed 50 or 500 hours ago would not have found any electrical defects. I run them 2000 hours and replace them with new units. We have a flight school here that runs R and S model 172s to TBO every few years and almost never remove a mag between TBO.
 
Being somewhat of a newbie to aircraft engines, I think the least complicated route would be to send the mags to an expert who works with them everyday. Sure it might be $375 per mag but what price can you really put on spark?

I'd imagine taking apart a carburetor or fuel servo isn't that complicated either, but I'm not doing it. :eek:

That said, I might feel a little different if rocketbob was my neighbor and walked me through several mag inspections.
 
Last edited:
boom3 said:
Being somewhat of a newbie to aircraft engines, I think the least complicated route would be to send the mags to an expert who works with them everyday. Sure it might be $375 per mag but what price can you really put on spark?

I'd imagine taking apart a carburetor or fuel servo isn't that complicated either, but I'm not doing it. :eek:

That said, I might feel a little different if rocketbob was my neighbor and walked me through several mag inspections.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I'd love to be able to do my own checks on my Slick mags, but the truth is I don't know what I'm looking for. Now if I had photos of all the "bad" conditions that are referenced in this thread, I'd be far more inclined to do it. It's what we don't know that can kill us the quickest.
 
boom3 said:
Being somewhat of a newbie to aircraft engines, I think the least complicated route would be to send the mags to an expert who works with them everyday. Sure it might be $375 per mag but what price can you really put on spark?

I'd imagine taking apart a carburetor or fuel servo isn't that complicated either, but I'm not doing it. :eek:

That said, I might feel a little different if rocketbob was my neighbor and walked me through several mag inspections.
Click to expand...

You have some valid points, and I rarely do any carb work on Marvel Scheblers as simple as they are because when they are worn out and need a complete overhaul, it is best to set them up and verify proper fuel flow using a flow bench, which I do not have. In my opinion Slick mags do not fall into the catagory of "specialized maintenence". There are very few parts in a Slick 4300 series mag. All you really need to do is remove them, open the case and inspect the distributor and points for excessive wear, clean the internal parts, set the E-gap timing, ohm out the coil and condensor, reassemble and reinstall on the engine. If they are not assembled correctly (which is almost impossible to do) then they will not spark or will run like ****.

I have several core 4300 series mags and I will send one to you to use as training tool if you want.
 
Trouble is, that's "your" opinion, and I can assure you, it would not be the same as the FAA's or any court in the land.

If You want to do that kind of maintenance on your own experimental that's fine (but not recommended), what I refuse to do is take short cuts on a customers aircraft (or my own) when I don't have the proper tools required for repair/testing called out in the CMM.

Bottom line is if you don't have the right tools and test equipment (and training), as called out in the CMM, you can't legally do the job.

Just my opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it :eek:
 
Last edited:
Walt said:
Trouble is, that's "your" opinion, and I can assure you, it would not be the same as the FAA's or any court in the land.

If You want to do that kind of maintenance on your own experimental that's fine (but not recommended), what I refuse to do is take short cuts on a customers aircraft (or my own) when I don't have the proper tools required for repair/testing called out in the CMM.

Bottom line is if you don't have the right tools and test equipment (and training), as called out in the CMM, you can't legally do the job.

Just my opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it :eek:
Click to expand...

Really? Where did you get this information? Please do tell and show the regulatory information to back that up.
 
Is this a Service Bulletin, an AD or a requirement ?

The Bendix 500 hour is an SB and is a recommendation only.

Personally, if it is running OK - leave it alone.

If it ain't - fit P-Mags :rolleyes::D
 
Mike H said:
Really? Where did you get this information? Please do tell and show the regulatory information to back that up.
Click to expand...

?43.2 Records of overhaul and rebuilding.

(a) No person may describe in any required maintenance entry or form an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part as being overhauled unless?

(1) Using methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, it has been disassembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired as necessary, and reassembled; and

(2) It has been tested in accordance with approved standards and technical data, or in accordance with current standards and technical data acceptable to the Administrator, which have been developed and documented by the holder of the type certificate, supplemental type certificate, or a material, part, process, or appliance approval under part 21 of this chapter.

(b) No person may describe in any required maintenance entry or form an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part as being rebuilt unless it has been disassembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired as necessary, reassembled, and tested to the same tolerances and limits as a new item, using either new parts or used parts that either conform to new part tolerances and limits or to approved oversized or undersized dimensions.
 
Hopefully they taught you in airplane mechanic school that if the feds walk up on you while doing anything but the most basic maintenance and ask where your reference material is and you don't have it you are busted.
 
paul mosher said:
?43.2 Records of overhaul and rebuilding.

(a) No person may describe in any required maintenance entry or form an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part as being overhauled unless?

(1) Using methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, it has been disassembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired as necessary, and reassembled; and

(2) It has been tested in accordance with approved standards and technical data, or in accordance with current standards and technical data acceptable to the Administrator, which have been developed and documented by the holder of the type certificate, supplemental type certificate, or a material, part, process, or appliance approval under part 21 of this chapter.

(b) No person may describe in any required maintenance entry or form an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part as being rebuilt unless it has been disassembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired as necessary, reassembled, and tested to the same tolerances and limits as a new item, using either new parts or used parts that either conform to new part tolerances and limits or to approved oversized or undersized dimensions.
Click to expand...

Negative! We were not, and are not discussing overhauling or rebuilding anything. Even if we were it does not apply to experimental aircraft.
 
[Text deleted--personal attacks violate forum rules; S. Buchanan]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[Text deleted...take your personal differences somewhere else; S. Buchanan]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mike H said:
Negative! We were not, and are not discussing overhauling or rebuilding anything. Even if we were it does not apply to experimental aircraft.
Click to expand...

The CMM uses the same section for the 500 hr insp as it does for overhauling the unit. Just because you didn't put a yellow tag it, or because its experimental, doesn't mean the intent isn't the same. If you sign off a 500 hr inspection and the FAA knocks on your door you will need to show that you have the equipment, training and technical data to perform the work.

Mike H said:
Really, wow Paul thanks for the guidance. I actually happen to be an inspector for the largest corporate maintenance facility in the world.
Click to expand...

Then you folllow a "Procedures manual" which the FAA has approved, out here we don't have a "Procedures manual" we just have the regs. I work on others people airplanes daily so I follow the regs, it helps keep folks safe and keeps me out of trouble :D
 
[Really guys??; S. Buchanan]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Walt said:
The CMM uses the same section for the 500 hr insp as it does for overhauling the unit. Just because you didn't put a yellow tag it, or because its experimental, doesn't mean the intent isn't the same. If you sign off a 500 hr inspection and the FAA knocks on your door you will need to show that you have the equipment, training and technical data to perform the work.



Then you folllow a "Procedures manual" which the FAA has approved, out here we don't have a "Procedures manual" we just have the regs. I work on others people airplanes daily so I follow the regs, it helps keep folks safe and keeps me out of trouble :D
Click to expand...

I never suggested making a maintenance record entry stating you performed a 500 hour inspection per the manufacturers CMM, much less making such an entry without actually doing exactly what the CMM calls out. The OP was asking who to send his mags to for inspection. If he is competent enough to remove and reinstall and time the mags hisself then he can definitely open the magneto and determine the condition of the unit using the factory manual and two tools that cost less than $20.00

Repair stations operate per a "repair station manual" not a "procedures manual". Repair station manuals do not allow you to subvert FARs or other FAA guidance.

As far as the statement "I work on others people's airplanes daily so I follow the regs, it helps keep folks safe and keeps me out of trouble" what are trying to imply. It would be easier to just say what you have to say.

I think you still owe me a response with the regulatory proof to back up this statement regarding performing maintenance on an experimental aircraft. "Bottom line is if you don't have the right tools and test equipment (and training), as called out in the CMM, you can't legally do the job."

Then there is this gem of a statement "Trouble is, that's "your" opinion, and I can assure you, it would not be the same as the FAA's or any court in the land."
 
[...sigh....; S. Buchanan]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"I never suggested making a maintenance record entry stating you performed a 500 hour inspection per the manufacturers CMM, much less making such an entry without actually doing exactly what the CMM calls out. The OP was asking who to send his mags to for inspection. If he is competent enough to remove and reinstall and time the mags hisself then he can definitely open the magneto and determine the condition of the unit using the factory manual and two tools that cost less than $20.00"

*** So what you are saying is that the OP who was looking for a shop to do a 500 hr mag insp, should just do it himself and not make a maint entry.

"Repair stations operate per a "repair station manual" not a "procedures manual". Repair station manuals do not allow you to subvert FARs or other FAA guidance."

*** Same thing...

"As far as the statement "I work on others people's airplanes daily so I follow the regs, it helps keep folks safe and keeps me out of trouble" what are trying to imply. It would be easier to just say what you have to say."

**** I believe that your recommendations to the OP or anyone else reading this thread are not in the best interest of safety.

"I think you still owe me a response with the regulatory proof to back up this statement regarding performing maintenance on an experimental aircraft. "Bottom line is if you don't have the right tools and test equipment (and training), as called out in the CMM, you can't legally do the job."

*** I was "assuming" that the person perfoming the work would sign for the work he accomplished, if he signs for doing a 500hr mag insp that he can't legally do than I would suggest he has commited fraud. I now understand you recommend he doesn't sign for his work, not signing for it (not taking responsibility) I guess makes it ok.

"Then there is this gem of a statement "Trouble is, that's "your" opinion, and I can assure you, it would not be the same as the FAA's or any court in the land."

*** Sorry but it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
inside a slick mag

I shot this with my iphone last winter. If you have never looked inside a mag this will give you an glimps. This is not intended as instructional or as a guide but only as a chance for someone to see the mag.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzkykFRlBgw&feature=youtu.be

I maintain my mags at a higher level than most because I get paid to fly my airplane occasionally and I don't want to have any issues, most don't look at their mags as often as I do.

Cm
 
Not a 500 hr but

A 250 hour inspection SB1- 98A maybe with the right tools.
Specifically the impulse coupling.

Tools needed: An impulse coupling puller and a rivet gauge.
Maybe this belongs into a different thread but Mr."Slick" Joe Logie was adamant about doing this inspection on affected engines/magneto installation,
saying that he had seen these fail in 300 hours.
He also said he would not fly an engine with 5th order counter weights and an impulse coupled slick mag. This from the folks at the Oshkosh slick booth.
He recommended a slick start module with a retard breaker instead.
(I think I'll just go with a second Lightspeed EI and be done with magnetos.

Quite simple really with the right tools.
Mine showed no noticeable wear around the affected rivets that hold down the pawls. I'll send it in for a 500 hour when it gets there.
slick.JPG


slick1.JPG


slick2.JPG


slick3.JPG


slick4.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top