Cessna 210 177 Wing Spar Bulletin - InTheHangar Ep 47
2024 ж. 25 Мам.
69 562 Рет қаралды
A&P/IA Bill Goebel talks about the recent crash of a Cessna 210 in Australia and the Cessna Service Letter that has come from that. Will there be an FAA AD on the cantilever wingspar? Dan Millican, a 210 owner and Bill discuss the problem and what owners of Centurion's and Cardinals should be doing to make sure they're safe.
For more info on Bill Goebel-- check out his new KZhead channel: / @hangaratz
I am diectly involved with this accident. I was the first person to visit the aircraft site after it was released from police and the astb. So some facts that YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND the aircraft was impeccable maintained. The aircraft had just had a service this area was not looked at at the service The aircraft was SID compliant completely The aircraft was in great condition. The aircraft use and flight profile in my opinion was not a contributing factor in this accident. NOW TAKE NOTE The faliure started from less than a pin head corrosion spot. It went in a the most critical point of the centre secition. It was not VISABLE BY THE NAKED EYE. TAKE NOTE ON THAT. Even its being reported that NDT may note pick any internal damage as the lower cap is in compression on the ground and weigh from the wings will close up anything that maybe there. This was a single pilot operation, the second pilot on broad was doing training. These were my friends. The only positive was they lost thier lives quicly and in a pretty place. Poeple making coments without all the facts and making unwarranted opinions maybe should get the facts firstly. This is the first recorded failure of the centre section that is known. Rip my friends sorry 😢
So sorry for your loss. And thank you for the information.
@@TakingOff I own a 1972 210L. I complied with the service letter with in a week of issuance. My TT airframe is a little over 6200 hours, and is flown weekly. The airplane has lived in N. California in a hangar for decades, and has impeccable maintenance. Visual inspection, my Thru-Spar looked like factory new! BUT further inspection with the "eddy current", showed something MUCH different. By the time we were done with the inspection, my thru-spar looked like a Dalmatian after blending out. There were many non-visible pin size corrosion spots found on my spar. From my experience in complying with this service letter, a visual inspection is a waste of time. Eddy current is a MUST! I'm a professional pilot, and one of those guys that feels that you should always go above and beyond on your maintenance. I just want everyone safe flying all of these affected planes.
Interesting. So Im guessing you already replaced the spar?
@@TakingOff No, I didn't replace the spar, just blended out the tiny corrosion pits that the eddy current picked up, and treated per the service letter. Sent info and pictures to Textron. I just feel that pilot/owners should be aware that "I believe" a visual inspection is NOT enough. And I realize to comply with the service letter you have to do an eddy current. Again, looking at my spar, it looked as good as new, but it wasn't. And thank you for your post, it is excellent information that needs to be out there.
so sad .. I remember the old wood Wing blank has and Muniz and the problem was invisible wood rot. I've got a friend in the US with a 210 and I'm going to send him this video.
A pilot at my local airport was installing shoulder harnesses in his C-177 RG and found corrosion on his wing spar and had to replace it.
That would be very rare... only a couple were ever done (that really needed it.) The corrosion around the shoulder harnesses is also a different situation... one which also impacts the 210. That issue does not lead to the specific type of failure discussed here.
I did my C177 at Legacy Aviation in Tea, South Dakota. The in-house certified NDT inspector found some filiform corrosion at the inspection area. All the corrosion was removed, and Eddy Current inspected. No crack findings were noted. The spar was cleaned, alodined, primed, and back to service. I highly recommend Dane Allison for his expertise and knowledge of this particular AD and Mandatory Service Bulletin.
This aircraft VH-SUX flew for awhile out of my Aerodrome at Orange NSW (YORG). I used to have a chuckle at the Rego when I heard or saw it.
I was just studying that very plane months ago.. saw that weird ass boom and I had to look it up. R.I.P.
Great info about this situation and ALL of the processes the faa uses between sending an SEL --> AD...
People always keep forgetting. You can't pull off side of the road in aircraft to check something or work on it when you 10+ foot above mother earth or V-1. No matter what you need to do. Your need do your inspections & preventive maintenance COMPLETELY without short cuts. Many holes in mother earth over people taking the easy way or cutting corners on Maintance. This a big one lot Mom & Pop aircraft involved on this issue. Could turn out very badly.
My company flies aerial survey. I can say that its common that at the end of our survey lines we’ll do very steep turns and pull Gs as we turn around and set up for our next line in opposite direction. It’s not a lot of Gs, maybe 1.8-2.1 but we do it 25-50 times per flight, multiple flights per week.
I THINK ID COP A BOO AT THAT ONE
I used to do inspections on 210's. Cessna glued a foam piece to the underside of the spar center section that made it impossible to inspect the cap without removing the headliner and the foam piece. On one 210, that I had noticed some corrosion in the spar area, when I did remove the headliner and foam I found quite severe corrosion on the spar cap. I sent a letter and pictures to the Cessna area rep but got no response. If its older than 17 years your on your own.Yes there needs to be an AD on the spar center section. Get rid of the foam and glue, inspect for cracks, remove all imperfections and polish the lower face of the center section cap. Then alodine and epoxy prime the spar. Do it NOW!
If I still had my T210 I would certainly be inspecting. I was always concerned with that part during annuals and my mechanic assured that was Very important inspection point. It's time to be very serious about this. These birds are all old enough, and lots of enjoyable hours, so far.
@Hard Facts It will if you try to load it like a 210 and fly it out of a high DA airport. :-P
Get a Cessna 206 or an older strutted 210. Best of both worlds. If you can get the doors closed she’ll fly... and those big struts are piece of mind.
Yes, check your spars people! You and your loved ones are hanging from it.
Literally.
I would definitely require it if I was buying a 177/210.
The Helio Couriers had the same problem. The fix was to double the wing attach points. On the one I had, the doubler was carried all the way through the cabin and the steel bars were strapped to the original carry through spar. there was nothing wrapping around the spar on the Helio. All that needed to be done was to pull the headliner. The factory fix required a die penetrant test and X-ray. Since the fix on my Courier was much stronger, I had an AMOC Letter from the FAA that just required a visual inspection.
I'm looking to buy a cardinal. Thanks for this info
I saw this on a cardinal I ferried 25 years ago. It had sat outside for years until I brought it to shop. During inspection, the spar was eaten almost 30-40 percent through in places. Stupid way to make a living. No more.
I worked as a aircraft QA for a depot for 15 years. Were it my aircraft I would do a minimum of a dye penetrant and if I had it available a eddy current. Either one is fairly easy with the eddy current being the hardest only because of the availability of the machine. Eddy current basically measures the flow of electricity through a piece of metal and measures the resistance.
I learned a fact about aluminum long ago. All alloys of aluminum fatigue. ~ drops mic, turns to exit....~
And when I was in the trucking industry, and even on my personal vehicles...ALL Have Steel Wheels...Not saying steel doesn't crack (it can), however, it usually takes several permanent bends to do so, AND it will Bleed Rust from said crack. You wouldn't believe how many aluminum wheels I have seen in pieces in the trucking industry.
I'm keeping my wood spars in my ancient airplane
I just had my C T210 L inspected . It was mandatory and the full report had to be sent to our CAA , Cessna and the FAA.
Are you from South Africa?
This is why I love strutted Cessnas. And why my Super Cub has D+E aluminum struts that follows the same basic very overengineered and extremely reliable formula. There has never been a documented failure of a strutted Cessna wing that wasn’t attributed to overstress or incorrect maintenance (automotive bolts in place of certified hardware, etc). A spar carrythru on a light aircraft needs a lot of room, and typically there’s only room for one. On Pipers they made it a part of the seat so it has a decent sized web. On Cessnas it eats into head room so it must be made shallower... greatly eating into bending strength and making any small flaws that much more critical. Now look at the distance between the strut and the spar fittings on a strutted Cessna. That’s how much room there is for bending loads to be transmitted... the strut being almost completely in tension and the spar in compression with a bit of vertical shear.. all being born by a massive hoop structure in the fuselage. Struts may be slow and ugly and get in your way, but so much better than the alternative. There’s a reason Cessna bought the Corvallis rather than restarting the 210 line and this is a good part of it (the other part being the Bonanza which is now a wholly superior design).
I don't want me or you to be that "2nd time" aviator that trips an AD
I'm a retired L.A.M.E (A&P) in Oz. I can confirm the comments made in this vid re stringent airworthiness regulations down under. I'm also a pilot & if I owned one of these aircraft, I would inspect it or have it inspected *ASAP* & before further flight ! regardless of SL's or anything else. I also remember an accident in your neck of the woods where a Piper lost a wing on the student pilots check ride. He and the FAA check airman both killed.
Yup. May of 2018 as I recall, at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida. Commercial student taking his checkride, just did a touch & go and the left wing (as I recall) came off on climb out. Both the student and a 25000+ hour examiner died. There's a video here on KZhead discussing that very accident (ATC audio, but no video footage of the actual accident as it happened), and I found it a month or so ago when I was researching various aircraft to acquire for the purpose of offering instrument training in a technologically-advanced aircraft. Ironically I was looking at a somewhat high-time Arrow, like 6300TT, in Texas at the time: New paint, nice interior, G500 Garmin, GTN 650...all for $105K. Yeah, too good to be true. Once I saw the video on the ERAU Arrow fatal accident, I pretty much turned away from flight school aircraft--which is where the Arrow I was looking at came from. Interestingly, another aircraft I was considering was the 177 and/or the 177RG. But I'll wager that it's only a matter of time before the Textron SL makes its way out as an AD. So then you've just bought yourself a problem for years to come--because just because a one-time eddy current inspection is negative for a stress riser or even an early crack defect, what happens the hour after that? Seems to me that you're almost going to be obligated to do the eddy current inspection again every couple of years, just for the piece of mind that the wing isn't going to come apart. Looks like a decent way to go might be a C-182, although they aren't terribly fast--but that's not necessarily a bad thing for an instrument student. A 182RG would be nice, but instrument training would add a lot of cycles to that retract system, which could get pricey. I'm an A&P too by the way, and sometimes too much knowledge can be a hindrance. Of course being the mayor of fat-dumb-and-happy-ville isn't the answer either...something the ERAU student and his examiner sadly discovered the hard way. RIP.
April 4 2018 I was working for piper during this time and flight training in a piper arrow for CSEL. All piper arrows were shutdown and a lot of them sold off from the schools for Cessnas go figure.
@@gerryortiz7276 Yeah, the ERAU accident was in April...not May like I mentioned in my first post. And I see now that the Commercial student's father is suing Piper. Very understandable about how the flight schools are dumping these older Arrows into the market. I was told "They no longer need the aircraft, as the FAA dropped the requirement(s) for a complex aircraft for a Commercial Pilot rating." I suppose that's a good cover story, but I suspect it has just as much to do with dumping the expense and the potential liability...because it's only a matter of time until the AD is in place and last I heard a spar replacement (should there be a crack) costs north of $8K per side. And that's the good news. The bad news is that there's no crack on the day of the inspection, but then one develops the day after that. I think if I was serious about looking at such an aircraft, an Arrow from a flight school, I would be looking to negotiate two new spars into the sale price. Otherwise that thing seems like a ticking time bomb--and the other PA-28 aircraft aren't much better, as I've heard. No wonder the price of used 172 and 182 aircraft is going up...
How is the PA-28 any worse than the 172, 182, Mooney, Musketeer, or any other small airplane? They’re all similar designs built from similar materials. None of these airplanes were designed to do what flight schools use them for: Repeated and numerous take offs and landings every day for years on end, many of them done by less-than-gentle student pilots. It’s the worst case scenario for the structure. What happened to that Archer shouldn’t be too surprising. Maintenance exists so we can catch stuff like this before it becomes a disaster. The only viable real-world solution is to increase maintenance requirements for these aircraft, especially when operated by flight schools.
Paul Fully-cantilevered wing, one main spar with a built-in dihedral. Go find a video showing how the Piper spar is built and attached and then get back to me. You can definitely see how 10000+ landings can take their toll.
That is one crash of many that prove the value of CAPS type systems.
If the assessment of the accident described here is correct, the spar pulling away from the roof *in* the cockpit, a Cyrus-type CAPS unit would have been of no help. The system has saved comparatively few lives, but again, probably wouldn’t have helped in this instance.
AND....they were at low level, so no time to deploy.
How about the micro cracks. From the out side it looks okay but, deep inside,? What can I use to have it checked?
Are there spars available from Cessna if yours is found bad? Have seen a lot of spar corrosion in the 210's at the salvage yard, most all, It is unfortunate that Cessna put foam on the spars. Also have seen some corrosion on the wing bolt flange mating areas.
No. But they are working on having new ones made.
Cessna built 9,240 C210s of which it would appear 3,165 are still registered in the USA and countless others around the world. Putting carry-thru spars back into production would be the sensible thing to do. They aren't cheap though. The last new price I believe was $27,485 back in 2017. Good used ones go for between $2,000 and $10,000. Add 120 man-hours to replace one.
@@27degrees $27,485?!! Are you serious? Why so expensive? It seems like a rather simple component. What am I missing?
@@mustangszz My guess is that it's about $1485 to have it CNC'd on a Haas mill, and $26000 to cover the liability.
I'll bet Cessna saved at least 20 to 30 dollars by shaving that wing spar down to its smallest possible form back in the day. Well done Cessna, you'll never catch me driving one again.
20 years ago I brokered a C210T sale between two of my friends, where the buyer was going to 135 the plane. Unfortunately after the deal was made, a more thorough inspection revealed heavy corrosion on the main spar. There was a lengthy but amicable court case that followed to nullify the sale, and I'm not sure what ever happened to the plane after that. This video sent a chill down my spine, knowing how many times we went up in that 210! Makes me wonder why a Titanium replacement piece couldn't be manufactured and certified as an FAA approved repair practice? Dissimilar metals issues? Cost?
Bureaucracy.
Changing the material of the spar would require the whole structure be retested and recertified. This really just comes down to maintenance.
I was thinking why not replace the entire wing?
With 3D scanning to make the molds that should be totally possible without much complexity, but idk this case and the same issue with the piper spars drive me away from 1960s-80s models with cantilever wings. Strut braced designs are inherently a lot stronger.
Why titanium? It's main benefit is that it works in high temperatures
I would be concerned about warm moist day cold night climate . Condensation will track downward in a liquid form if it finds a pinhole and freezes . Well that's how mountains become gravel.
High time GA planes are subject to fatigue and corrosion. The strut Cessnas of course are different than cantilever wing C210.
Be aware that the SIDS program on Cessna aircraft has found problems with the strutted models that were not expected.
@@peterlovett5841 Good point. Thanks for that info. All aging planes should have thorough structural inspections, detailed visual and non-destructive testing using high-frequency eddy current, or ultrasonic (or good old dye penetrant).
Eddy current inspection is THE only way to go. How much of a gamble are you willing to take ? If you're wrong, you have an unrecoverable catastrophic structural failure in flight. God help us all, please.
Have you done a video on the Cessna 401 wingspar? .
Wasn't aware of an issue.
I have a 68 T210H. Because of the inspection we found my spar is unairworthy. I am about 1/2 way done having it replaced (I was lucky and found a new old stock spar still on the market). According to Cessna, an AD is in the pipe works. I am a member of a very active facebook 210 group "Cessna 210 Owners and Pilots" where I have been posting pictures and documenting the spar change. facebook.com/groups/cessna210/
And what will happen if the FAA gets further politicized? The 737 Max problem is some of the FAAs grief as well as Boeings; Boeing engineers, following management guidance, were not supposed to make waves that would make the Max "not a 737 craft" and require an entire new class testing procedure- that would be expensive, and would further delay delivery (and income) of the 737 Max. The FAA was "depending" on Boeing, one of the largest military subcontractors to the DoD, to be honest and forthcoming on matters that could negatively effect its bottom line.Most of 300 people are dead from that money and trouble saving assumption. I won't try to peddle "this admin....." or the other; this development period is across at least three different POTUS' administration- there are no "unguilty" political parties here. This must stop.
cool seeing my name in the credits. :-)
Does a Pier Malibu have a Wing Spar problem as many Cessna 210 and 177's do?
Lot of misinformation here. Look to the CFO organization on any Cardinal related ‘wing carrythrough’ beam into (it’s NOT a spar). Never mentioned was the SB categorization of ‘uses’ by Cessna. That 210 was in ‘severe use’ and in a special category!
It 's been awhile but it seems the AD already exists. Just add C-210 and C-177 to 63-20-02, which applies to C-190 & 195. I'm sure nothing is that simple now but it's a starting point.
Eddy current testing is more like ohm testing a resistor, it's supposed to have a specific value if the resistance is out of spec then it will indicate either corrosion or fatigued parts. I was a crew chief on a b-1 and we used to test the wing spars with this method.
I always think it a pity that makers of certified and kit planes, do not anodise critical structures when they are made in the factory. Kit with alloy and carbon together are particularly vulnerable.
The later model Cardinals *were* anodized during manufacturing, starting I think in 1977.
So many use this same spar would we not see more failures in all the years they have been in the air? Maybe this one had been over stressed in the past before it was used in this capacity somehow.
There is alot of information that was left out about how this airplane was flown which ultimately led to the failure of the carry through.
I guess I won't be buying another 210 anytime soon. It's kind of hard to relax and enjoy the flight when you're worried about the wing snapping off at any moment
I am wondering at the point how many faulty spars have been found?
MANY ...nearly every popular USA light aircraft has potentially fatal crack points - strut Cessnas have multiple. Ditto PA28 series, Cessna 310 & 402.....the list grows each year. All have corrosion, particularly inter - metal contact points like attachment & webs
Flew a 210 for 5 years max gross weight nearly every takeoff ie freight that was 20 years ago it’s still flying.
Tragic ending. A Mooney is looking better every day. They’ve never had a structural issue with their wing or empennage sections.
I'm amazed that anyone would even question getting a full inspection. It's just like hesitating to install shoulder harnesses, or seat belt airbags or ballistic parachutes. Who (in their right mind) doesn't want to use the most capable anti "uh-oh" services and install the most capable devices? Then again, there seems to be a contingent of pilots who are, for lack of better words, excitement seekers, who downplay risk. Reminds me of the old phrase, "their are no old bold pilots".
2020 hind sight is perfect.
I do not believe you can inspect the top side of that spar in place. The fuselage roof prohibits. How do you overcome?
Hey facts, i disagree, wing loading happens in both directions, granted the majority of the load is on the underside, Compression is still a force.
On the Cardinal the spar *is* the top surface of the wing, so you can inspect it with a ladder. It is also painted so very unlikely to have a problem unless you have something getting under the paint.
@Hard Facts it's still loading You don't know how many planes have negative . My point was to checkThe upper part of the spar as well.
Hard Facts You may be technically correct but your sanctimonious attitude dissuades any appeal to your opinion. But let me speak on your terms. Your opinion is complete horse manure. As a wing flexes inflight, compression loads increase and decrease just as often as tension loads. The same structure experiences the same load cycle throughout. A positive G load to 1.2 increases the tension and compression load. Rebounding to say 0.9 G reduces the load. The structure experiences a load cycle within Design loads. It does not experience Limit loads. However the corrosion pit cannot transfer the load, hence a stress point, compression or tension. If the compression structure is compromised, then the extra load is transferred to the tension members The accident aircraft was not known to be overstressed, only small cyclic loads. Also I have yet to see inspection criteria that states ‘it’s a compression load , no action needed’. Maybe there is something like that, I don’t know everything but you sound like you do. So please enlighten us ignorant folks. P.S. Your strut braced 172 wing is cantilever outboard of the strut attach point.
Hard Facts I am aware the 210 wing failed in tension not related to any compression structure defect. My issue is with your claim that the spar experiences 1/100 compression load cycles compared to tension loads. In regards to your sanctimonious claim : they ALL..... The T-34 wing spar failures are addressed by a doubler to the shear web. Same with the old Convair airliner. The Saunders strap was deemed ineffective by the FAA. The early Bonanza wings ( failed by exceeding Vne)were reinforced by giving the spar a full length shear web. Perhaps you are talking about Limit loads which is not germane to the 210 incident and the ensuing discussion.
They talk at 4:30 about the foam glued to the bottom of the 210 spar and it's tendency to trap moisture. The Cardinal does not have that foam, so is much less likely to have an issue there. It is still an area worth inspecting!
Keith Peterson the cardinal does have steel wire reinforced air tubes that pass though the spar and can induce bimetallic corrosion.
I am being told it isn't the foam so much as the glue. It is Hygroscopic (absorbs moisture from the air)
@@derekboxwell9312 Exactly correct! We see that same glue in some sound dampening panels which can corrode underneath, same concept.
@@cardinalflyer Yea. I removed my spar, my sound damping. Then I removed my spar because it was F'ed. Just finished putting the new spar in. Had a kid spend 100hrs stripping all the adhesive from the interior. About the epoxy paint the interior. Plane will see another 50 yeas of low corrosion service I hope.
I'm not a structural engineer, or a pilot, but this sounds like a poor wing design or the wrong materials were used to me. I wouldn't wait for my wings to fall off,, I would demand Cessna come up with an immediate and viable solution to this problem. People on the ground are at risk too.
Finally a plane that lived up to its name..
Any piece of metal, no matter how strong it was originally, that has been exposed to temperature changes, humidity and flexed repeatedly over 30 - 60 years has a chance of failing. Unfortunately time and money must be spent to insure your safety.
I woudn't put my life in the hands of a human that inspects it. There needs to be an improved spar or something.
Don't ever step foot in an aircraft then. Any aircraft.
Titanium
Have any other problems been found? We don't know if this plane was abused at some point of its life. Saying that the current owner was responsible doesn't mean anything. We don't know if the guy who owned it 15 years ago was doing aerobatics.
It was a commercially used 210 in Australia. It was used for low level survey and had a (approved) boom extending after from the tail section. So we do have a lot of info on the plane that failed.
@@TakingOff It was a 40+ year old plane that was only in Australia for a couple years. We know about the last couple years, but there are decades of use and 12,000 flight hours that we are not familiar with. It makes me think of the T-34's that had wing failures. They were mostly doing high G aerobatics for years and then failed. Maybe this plane wasn't being abused at any point in its long history, but the jury is still out on that one. It will be interesting to see how many additional problematic wing spars they find.
Yeah, I agree. With the wingspar exams, it's like the Corona Virus--- there's people that say it's a shame and others that say its a pandemic.
@@TakingOff The funny thing is I got away from the Cherokee line due to wing spar issues. I've been looking at the Cessna 177RG. I just want a plane with a good spar! I guess I should have kept my Cirrus. At least I had a parachute.
Well, my own 210 wingspar came through exam with flying colors. I love my 210, and have full confidence in the wing.
Look up NTSB accident #ERA23FA209
Host is annoying for multiple interruptions when the mech speaks.
"Modified" is the key word.
The mods had nothing to do with the spar failure. For fuck sake.
Typical, FAA, Manufacturer airworthy certification 001a1- pass the buck ! Planes and boats, big holes to put money in.
So i'm reading the ATSB report www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2019/aair/ao-2019-026/ and VH-SUX had over 12,000 hours of time on it across two countries. 6000 hours in Australia for surveying. A typical mission was 5 hours of surveying an area in a grid pattern with a turn (i'm assuming 180 since they did E/W, then N/S) performed at each line. Was each turn really performed without excessive Gs repeatedly? That with supplemental wingtip tanks carrying load far out? Nobody will know...but i have to wonder... I know we need to be careful, and great advice on what constitutes part of a thorough inspection on these planes by taking the headliner down... I'll be curious what the statistical analysis of eddy current survey on the spars of 177/210's with more typical GA workloads provides, but the duty cycle on VH-SUX airframe seems to be well outside the norm of what the GA world would put on a typical 177/210. I hope because of this the statistics show this failure as a very rare corner case. My 2 pennies...(and and my ulterior motive is that i'm somewhat looking for a 177RG for my wife and I to get around in).
I agree and want to make sure that people that might profit by an AD aren’t the ones determining if us owners need to do it, but that it’s a rational decision based on real evidence.
Service Bulletin??? Why not Make it an AD for Every Annual Inspection??? Eddie Current....
I’m all for reasonable and cautious... but there’s a point where you can spend thousands and thousands to repair something that might even be politically based (see ECI AD). So I’d rather the AD’s come carefully and responsibly.
Don't worry...once the eddy current inspection becomes a requirement, it's only a matter of time until a "follow-up" inspection is required. And the more eddy current inspections there are being done, the more defects they're going to find. The defect might well have been there 10 years mind you, but once it's found on an EC inspection, given the current concerns, the more likely it is that you'll be looking for a new spar carry-through. (Or a new aircraft.)
@@bluehornet6752 or every 2 to 3 yrs. It's a matter of safety, I think...
@@TakingOff How much does non destructive testing of a wing spar actually cost? I think its a worthy investment. We should also think about introducing TBO times for wing spars and other structural elements. So much time and money is spent for engine maintenance (compression testing, regular oil changes and overhauls etc.) and at the same time people are flying around with 40 year old wing spars that had to endure thousands of rough landings, turbulence, and whatever other abuse previous owners might have put them through. Regular non destructive testing for metal fatigue and corrosion really is the least we should do.
Wigner effect from Fukushima. Chemtrails as an an assisting factor.
Why aren't structural aluminium parts anti corrosively treated in the factory? It seems particularly careless to hide untreated structural parts, even mass produced items like cars and washing machines are given corrosion protection WTF.
Most aluminum is protected against corrosion. Typically they are covered in alclad which is pure aluminum which forms a barrier of corrosion to protect the aluminum underneath... or treated with etch and alodine. This is enough protection for 99% of aircraft that aren’t in corrosive environments. I’ve pulled open 50 year old Cessnas and you can still see yourself in the reflection with just a few white spots of surface corrosion that wouldn’t go anywhere in a million years. For an airplane manufacturer who had no idea people would keep planes this long it seemed like a good idea. Zinc chromate paint was poisonous and other primers and coatings were expensive and heavy and labour intensive to add.
Most aluminum is protected against corrosion. Typically they are covered in alclad which is pure aluminum which forms a barrier of corrosion to protect the aluminum underneath... or treated with etch and alodine. This is enough protection for 99% of aircraft that aren’t in corrosive environments. I’ve pulled open 50 year old Cessnas and you can still see yourself in the reflection with just a few white spots of surface corrosion that wouldn’t go anywhere in a million years. For an airplane manufacturer who had no idea people would keep planes this long it seemed like a good idea. Zinc chromate paint was poisonous and other primers and coatings were expensive and heavy and labour intensive to add.
I work on commercial airliners, where every piece of aluminum alloy structure is alodined and primed, at a minimum. I agree that this should be considered best practice in general aviation as well, but I also realize that our general aviation fleet is old and was never designed or expected to be flying this long.
Cessna was notoriously negligent in this endeavor, IMHO. I've found some black tar-like crap painted on the inside of skins between ribs, but never have I seen the skins/ribs primed like on many of the Piper aircraft I've worked on over the years. And in a Cessna there always seems to be many many little foci of corrosion seen. I get it that these manufacturers never intended for their product(s) to be in service 40, 50 or 60 years later, but it just seems like common sense to prime the interior structure of an aircraft. The anti-corrosion properties notwithstanding, it's much easier to inspect interior structures when there aren't shiny aluminum surfaces reflecting light in 100+ directions. The glare is distracting to say the least.
Psycho music
My friends, The general aviation aircraft we all learned to sly in are all decaying junk. . . They are all old poorly designed machines that have long since had their day. . .It will be the RC community that will bring us out of it so long as the components continue to made larger and more efficient.
They were not poorly designed but they weren't designed to be still flying 30 - 40 - 50 years later. Cessna at least had the integrity to look seriously at the issue and instituted the SIDS program. The wealth of information coming out of that is amazing. In Australia the program is mandatory for all Cessna models, I understand that in the US it is only advisory but I may be wrong on that.
Whoa fellows you mean aircraft are built without chromate ( the green coating ) applied to metal subject to corrosion ? Really we coated WW 2 aircraft with it and they had a short life expectancy but those guys knew how rapid aluminum can pit and weaken in humid ( South Pacific anyone ) really I am disgusted at how our “ modern “ culture forgets history in every which way.... Sure pack water absorbing material around an Aircrafts Most critical frame structure ( hell it only holds the wings on ) And provide an inspection panel headliner for easy access ? No it’s not good decoration ! Geez stupid designs never cease to amaze me ....