Letters

Enduring Luscombes

Everything old is new again! Comparing the May 2000 cover photo by Michael P. Collins with the February 1986 cover photo by Art Davis, I thought that I caught you people recycling photos.

But looking very closely, I realized the airplanes are different. Sorry I doubted. Nice photo.

Charles O. Wright III AOPA 1058426
Oxford, Connecticut

Rick Durden's " Lust for a Luscombe" (May Pilot) is a wonderful accounting of Luscombe's history through 1964, and a delightfully accurate review of our favorite airplane's flying characteristics—as well as its undeserved reputation earned by inattentive pilots and sloppy piloting technique.

However, his accounting of Luscombe lore after the factory closed in Fort Collins, Colorado, contains some inaccuracies and omissions.

The Luscombe airplane type certificate is held by the Don Luscombe Aviation History Foundation, a nonprofit group dedicated to preserving the Luscombe's heritage. The type certificate has been aggressively supported by the foundation with new parts production under an FAA parts manufacturer approval and the annual raffle of a restored Luscombe. Among numerous other activities, the foundation plans to break ground this fall for a Luscombe museum and archive support facility at the Chandler (Arizona) Municipal Airport; more than half of the $1.2 million fund-raising goal has been attained. Luscombe owners, through their continued support of the foundation, have expressed their desire to share this history with the aviation community and the public at large.

P. Douglas Combs AOPA 651226
Phoenix, Arizona

Combs is president of the Don Luscombe Aviation History Foundation. For more information about Luscombes or the foundation's activities, telephone 480/917-0969, or visit the Web site ( www.luscombe.org)—Ed.

Way to go

I congratulate AOPA President Phil Boyer for holding his own against Sen. John McCain in the FAA Management Advisory Council (MAC) confirmation hearings. I firmly believe that "user fees" are the most important issue facing general aviation today. Although I respect McCain and voted for him in the last primary, I am not with him on this one.

I can only see user fees as an attempt to squeeze out GA pilots. Sure, the airlines are for them because they pass the costs along to the passengers and spread out the fees among 300 or so passengers on an airliner. These user fees would also reduce safety because many pilots will "squawk 1200" instead of filing IFR or requesting VFR flight following.

William H. Weedon AOPA 1410239
Warwick, Rhode Island

Enjoying the life

I loved riding with Stephen Coonts on his adventure in " The Flying Life" (May Pilot). Each of us has enjoyed just such a priceless day, leaving everyday stresses behind and affectionately referring to ourselves with only the tail number of our favorite aircraft.

This country should promote and protect such opportunities, which is why I fully agree with AOPA's position on user fees. Short of charging for air to breathe, next will be a 10-cent charge for every mile driven on federal highways—enforced by cameras and billed each month. It will be a positively brilliant proposal because not all taxpayers use the highways, at least not directly. Of course, cutting existing taxes would be out of the question because we need general tax dollars to expand social programs, where the users (and, unfortunately, abusers) are the only ones who don't pay.

They're awfully clever in raising our taxes; I probably shouldn't give them any ideas. I am 17, and I can only hope that when I'm 60 I will still be able to freely soar above this beautiful country of ours, even if it is only to find the beginnings of one of its great rivers.

Jordan Ryan AOPA 3502241
Broomfield, Colorado

Wings of a feather

I enjoyed Barry Schiff's " Proficient Pilot: The Wonder of Wings" (May Pilot). His paragraph about birds' safe flight and avoiding stupid mistakes reminded me of a bird "incident" I saw.

At an aquarium in Norway a few years ago they were feeding the seals by tossing them individual fish. The fish were probably 10 inches long. Because the seals missed a few of them, there were a number of gulls around. We observed one such gull as he caught a fish in midair.

As an aviator you can imagine how much this would move the CG forward, and how much the max gross weight for the bird was exceeded. He was not able to gain altitude, but his greed got the better of his judgment, and after flying 15 feet he crashed head-on into a concrete wall. It didn't kill him, but I'll bet his buddies gave him a hard time about it for a long time.

From this I learned to not exceed your forward CG limit, not to exceed max gross weight, and not to be greedy—even if you are a bird.

James A. Peterson AOPA 388882
Morris, Illinois

Preflight advice

Peter A. Bedell's article " A Prelude to Takeoff" (May Pilot) was of great personal interest to me, as well as very timely. I am a student pilot in a Cessna 172 about three weeks from my checkride, and am a stickler for many of the most commonly overlooked preflight items mentioned in his article. I always check cotter pins and bolts from the nose gear all the way back to the rudder and trim tabs—and such things as fuel caps, which the line folks occasionally leave ajar.

Many of the things he mentions, as well as some others, were driven home for me upon returning from a recent flight. I was with an instructor and was just tying the plane down when we were ramp checked by an FAA inspector—an uncomfortable experience for any pilot, but highly educational. Despite our apprehension, the inspector turned out to be very courteous and articulate in pointing out many safety items that are rarely found in any pilot's preflight regimen.

Among the most startling pointers, but in retrospect obvious, involved the Cessna door hinge pins. He barely grasped the top of the lower pin on the left door, and it popped right out, leaving the door loose. The pin, which is normally about 2.5 inches in length, had rusted through and broken, leaving only the top three-fourths of an inch or so. In rather dramatic fashion, the inspector described what could have happened had the pin shaken loose in flight and the slipstream had taken the door aft, shearing the horizontal stabilizer. A missing bolt on a hinge is easy to spot, but who checks the pin? Even with a strong tug on the door, it would appear to be secure. The plane was grounded for that, as well as some other issues.

Needless to say, the hinge pins are now a key addition to my preflight checklist, and it has left me a little uneasy to find that the problem appears to be quite common in the older rental planes—many of which I've flown numerous times. In fact, since the inspection, I've squawked two other planes, which were grounded until the pins could be replaced.

Steve Powloski AOPA 3401734
Hermosa Beach, California

Cleaner caution

I enjoyed Peter A. Bedell's " Airframe and Powerplant: Bucket Brigade" (May Pilot) but have one comment about the use of Simple Green on aircraft. Recently the U.S. Army sent a notice in its aviation safety publication regarding the use of Simple Green. The notice stated that Simple Green was not to be used for any aircraft cleaning because it is corrosive. I own an airplane and use Simple Green on it at times and was concerned.

I called Simple Green and spoke to someone in the technical department. They agreed with the Army's notice and said they do not recommend Simple Green as an aircraft cleaner because "it is known to etch aluminum." The person I spoke with said that if it was her airplane she wouldn't use the product. In fact, she said that the etching is why Simple Green is not a military-spec cleaner.

Dennis Elliott AOPA 734507
Fairmont, West Virginia

Pilots and aircraft owners should be cautious when using any cleaning product on aircraft. No cleaner should be left on an aircraft for an extended period; any cleaner should be promptly and thoroughly rinsed off the airframe with water—Ed.

Just testing

In the answers to " Test Pilot" (May Pilot), Barry Schiff makes the statement that the P–38 Lightning "shot down more Japanese aircraft during World War II than any other." This is often-quoted fallacy, as the statement is true only with the modifier "more than any Army Air Force aircraft."

The P–38 was credited with downing approximately 1,800 Japanese aircraft. The F4U Corsair was credited with downing 2,140 Japanese planes, and the Grumman F6F downed 5,163 Japanese aircraft.

Mark Coffee AOPA 1199114
Canton, Georgia

An answer is incorrect in "Test Pilot" (May Pilot). The North American P–51 was not converted into a twin. Although it would appear that two P–51s were "bolted together" to form a P–82 "Twin Mustang"—thus a conversion—such was not the case. The P–51H and P–82 share only three common parts: the engine, engine cowling installation, and the canopy. It might also be added that these three parts were first designed for the P–82 and later incorporated into the as-yet-undesigned P–51H. The P–82 does not share any parts with the standard Mustang.

By the way, I know the location of a P–82 that could be restored. Anyone have a couple of million dollars that they don't know what do to with?

Don Williams AOPA 765989
Erie, Pennsylvania

We welcome your comments. Address your letters to: Editor, AOPA Pilot , 421 Aviation Way, Frederick, Maryland 21701. Send e-mail to [email protected]. Include your full name, address, and AOPA number on all correspondence, including e-mail. Letters will be edited for style and length.