Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:53 am
>Are the 50 and 100 hour inspections more like annuals?<
The only difference between a 100hr and annual is a IA must look at it to make sure it conforms to the Type Certificate, ie has the correct engine,prop and so on, and it is signed off by a IA, a 100hr only needs a A&P sign off. The basic scope of the inspection is the same. Also, 100hrs only need to be done on aircraft for hire and those used for training. A privately owned plane can fly as much as he wants, as long as the required ADs are done.
With aerobatic planes, you do need to look at them harder, just do to anything that hangs, moves or is mounted to the airframe it is sujected to G forces, so what might work in a Cessna, might fail when subjected to 4+ Gs.
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Crew Chief of TBM-3E, DC-3C, B-25J, PBY-5a, T-28C, SNJ-4, PT-17
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
The only difference between a 100hr and annual is a IA must look at it to make sure it conforms to the Type Certificate, ie has the correct engine,prop and so on, and it is signed off by a IA, a 100hr only needs a A&P sign off. The basic scope of the inspection is the same. Also, 100hrs only need to be done on aircraft for hire and those used for training. A privately owned plane can fly as much as he wants, as long as the required ADs are done.
With aerobatic planes, you do need to look at them harder, just do to anything that hangs, moves or is mounted to the airframe it is sujected to G forces, so what might work in a Cessna, might fail when subjected to 4+ Gs.
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Crew Chief of TBM-3E, DC-3C, B-25J, PBY-5a, T-28C, SNJ-4, PT-17
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:20 am
Wow, if all this energy had been directed toward inspecting wing attach angles, we'd all be good to go by now. 
Fri Jun 10, 2005 12:38 pm
If anybody is interrested........this is what I came up with for the AD.
Magnaflux Fluoresecnt Penetrant Kit #ZA-70.
AN3-6A 4 ea.
AN4-6A 12 ea.
AN407A 42 ea.
AN4-10A 54 ea.
AN5-7A 60 ea.
AN5-10A 52 ea.
AN5-11A 4 ea.
AN365-428A 108 ea.
AN960-416 108 ea.
AN365-524A 116 ea.
AN960-516 116 ea.
AN365-1032A 4 ea.
AN960-10 4 ea.
That's from a Harvard IV Parts Manual.
Now you can quit arguing and get working!!!!
Glenn
Magnaflux Fluoresecnt Penetrant Kit #ZA-70.
AN3-6A 4 ea.
AN4-6A 12 ea.
AN407A 42 ea.
AN4-10A 54 ea.
AN5-7A 60 ea.
AN5-10A 52 ea.
AN5-11A 4 ea.
AN365-428A 108 ea.
AN960-416 108 ea.
AN365-524A 116 ea.
AN960-516 116 ea.
AN365-1032A 4 ea.
AN960-10 4 ea.
That's from a Harvard IV Parts Manual.
Now you can quit arguing and get working!!!!
Glenn
Fri Jun 10, 2005 1:06 pm
Harvard weren't you the advocate of using parts pulled out of the Ocean?
Fri Jun 10, 2005 1:13 pm
Glenn Wegman wrote:If anybody is interrested........this is what I came up with for the AD.
Magnaflux Fluoresecnt Penetrant Kit #ZA-70.
AN3-6A 4 ea.
AN4-6A 12 ea.
AN407A 42 ea.
AN4-10A 54 ea.
AN5-7A 60 ea.
AN5-10A 52 ea.
AN5-11A 4 ea.
AN365-428A 108 ea.
AN960-416 108 ea.
AN365-524A 116 ea.
AN960-516 116 ea.
AN365-1032A 4 ea.
AN960-10 4 ea.
That's from a Harvard IV Parts Manual.
Now you can quit arguing and get working!!!!
Glenn
Thanks Glenn (I'm on it... the working thing). I'm 80% done
with fabricating a "hard tooling" jig to facilitate the complete
rebuild of both horizontal stabs (all new skins, all new stringers,
several NOS ribs).
Bela P. Havasreti
Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:46 pm
Hi Guys:
I commend you that we could turn this conversation around to being positive. Ok I'll admit it when I'm wrong, and again I posted out of anger towards the feds for being a little heavy handed. The magnitude of my response was excessive. If I would have worded it like Bela or Matt, everything would've been fine.
Yes, just kidding.
You want to start that post again? That would be fun. Ha Ha, just kidding, and Scott would lock her up..
I commend you that we could turn this conversation around to being positive. Ok I'll admit it when I'm wrong, and again I posted out of anger towards the feds for being a little heavy handed. The magnitude of my response was excessive. If I would have worded it like Bela or Matt, everything would've been fine.
Harvard weren't you the advocate of using parts pulled out of the Ocean?
Yes, just kidding.
You want to start that post again? That would be fun. Ha Ha, just kidding, and Scott would lock her up..
Wing Attach AD Progress
Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:37 pm
Just thought I would share some progress with everyone. I have had my airplane in our shop now for two days. They have about 15 hours into the job and are about halfway complete. I estimate between 10-15 man hours to finish the job, however, this is the first inspection my shop has done so the learning curve is definately there. I think a shop with experience could do the inpection in 20 hours at best, but that's just a guess based on my experience at this point. A couple of lessons so far:
1. Be sure to have a good quality chemical stripper. There was some paint that came off easily but other paint was a bit more difficult.
2. I would start on the lower attach angles first since that is the area of more concern and I believe the area that the failure occured in May.
Hope this helps.
Mike Hogan
N4995P
T-6G
1. Be sure to have a good quality chemical stripper. There was some paint that came off easily but other paint was a bit more difficult.
2. I would start on the lower attach angles first since that is the area of more concern and I believe the area that the failure occured in May.
Hope this helps.
Mike Hogan
N4995P
T-6G
Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:08 pm
Hey you all,
I was talking to a local T-6 operator/aerobatic performer this afternoon and he is currently having his airplane inspected so he can fly in the airshow at Quonset this weekend. Barring any "Fatigue Cracks" he should have it back on friday, ready to work the weekend. Good Luck to him!
As for the discussion about the AD, there are alot of situations out there that 1 incident has caused a whole bunch of expense for others in the direction saftey. As for this one, if it never happens again fantastic if it happens again, revise it to Fix It!
I have watched the T-34 thing, I have seen the Zlin wing AD which was caused by a pilot doing something that he wasnt supposed to and had a wing separate from the A/C. I have seen the requirements that the FAA has put on new production aircraft from the Concorde accident. (Cut the tire in 6 places/install explosives/overinflate/explode in wheelwell/look for damage) which created the istallation of a protective ring in the wheel well of a new production aircraft. Then theres the really rediculous thing with a Beechcraft Gust Lock. You have to look at it every year and sign the AD off that it was the correct part number. (4 or 5 fatal accidents turned it into an AD, Nails and other unmarked pins in the yoke on takeoff) That one was a Communique, then a SB, then an AD. Then theres the common sense ADs, Change your paper air filters every year, No Sh*t! Better make it an AD
I have read the bulletin, my Chief Inspector printed a copy and left it on my box the day it came out, it doesnt seem like its a horrible thing for the "peace of mind" if you have to do this every couple of years. (I couldnt remember if it was 200 hours or annually, of just every 200 hrs)
Great post to read, lots of good info and some great discussion. I especially liked the history of the wing design, and the DC-3 connection.
KEEP EM POSTING!
I was talking to a local T-6 operator/aerobatic performer this afternoon and he is currently having his airplane inspected so he can fly in the airshow at Quonset this weekend. Barring any "Fatigue Cracks" he should have it back on friday, ready to work the weekend. Good Luck to him!
As for the discussion about the AD, there are alot of situations out there that 1 incident has caused a whole bunch of expense for others in the direction saftey. As for this one, if it never happens again fantastic if it happens again, revise it to Fix It!
I have watched the T-34 thing, I have seen the Zlin wing AD which was caused by a pilot doing something that he wasnt supposed to and had a wing separate from the A/C. I have seen the requirements that the FAA has put on new production aircraft from the Concorde accident. (Cut the tire in 6 places/install explosives/overinflate/explode in wheelwell/look for damage) which created the istallation of a protective ring in the wheel well of a new production aircraft. Then theres the really rediculous thing with a Beechcraft Gust Lock. You have to look at it every year and sign the AD off that it was the correct part number. (4 or 5 fatal accidents turned it into an AD, Nails and other unmarked pins in the yoke on takeoff) That one was a Communique, then a SB, then an AD. Then theres the common sense ADs, Change your paper air filters every year, No Sh*t! Better make it an AD
I have read the bulletin, my Chief Inspector printed a copy and left it on my box the day it came out, it doesnt seem like its a horrible thing for the "peace of mind" if you have to do this every couple of years. (I couldnt remember if it was 200 hours or annually, of just every 200 hrs)
Great post to read, lots of good info and some great discussion. I especially liked the history of the wing design, and the DC-3 connection.
KEEP EM POSTING!
Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:25 pm
All:
Just finished the inspection on my airplane (Harvard II) and the CAF SNJ here in Midland....no cracks, no corrosion on either one. Going back together with new hardware after alodine treatment, Corrosion X, and some zinc chromate. We're breathing easier now.
Time spent per airplane was about 12 hours, including stripping, masking, bolt removal, cleaning, spraying the dye, developer, getting the black light, etc, etc.
Not as much of a pain as I thought it would be, and I feel better about both airplanes.
Bill Coombes
PS...This forum is really informative at times, and other times is a complete waste. I wish we could all use it for information and nothing else.
Just finished the inspection on my airplane (Harvard II) and the CAF SNJ here in Midland....no cracks, no corrosion on either one. Going back together with new hardware after alodine treatment, Corrosion X, and some zinc chromate. We're breathing easier now.
Time spent per airplane was about 12 hours, including stripping, masking, bolt removal, cleaning, spraying the dye, developer, getting the black light, etc, etc.
Not as much of a pain as I thought it would be, and I feel better about both airplanes.
Bill Coombes
PS...This forum is really informative at times, and other times is a complete waste. I wish we could all use it for information and nothing else.
???
Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:48 pm
Bill,
All we need is to keep serious posts on track, informative posts informative and fun post fun. I'm very glad you had a good outcome on your inspections!
All we need is to keep serious posts on track, informative posts informative and fun post fun. I'm very glad you had a good outcome on your inspections!
Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:29 am
Bill, u said u stripped the attach angles and then reprimered them, some guys here even painted the attach angles. I wonder why just not applying a a hand of preserving oil? It's easier to remove (doesnt leave all the crap the primer+paint+stripper does..)and gives a great level of protection.
Alex
Alex
Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:18 pm
Must be repainted per the AD:
"If no cracks or major defects are found, replace nuts and bolts following directions in paragraphs (11) and (12) of this appendix of this AD, clean angle, and apply a corrosion protectant coating paint (Alodine alone is not acceptable."
"If no cracks or major defects are found, replace nuts and bolts following directions in paragraphs (11) and (12) of this appendix of this AD, clean angle, and apply a corrosion protectant coating paint (Alodine alone is not acceptable."
Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:39 pm
I see.
I guess it's redundant, but if they say so..
Alex
I guess it's redundant, but if they say so..
Alex
Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:39 pm
italian harvard wrote:I see.
I guess it's redundant, but if they say so..
Alex
Well, not really. Alodine provides a thin layer of corrosion protection that is susceptable to scatching and buffing away. It certainly does not offer the same corrosion resistance that a well applied continuous layer of paint will.
John
Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:10 pm
apply a corrosion protectant coating paint (Alodine alone is not acceptable."
The AD is overkill, all you need is to alodine, and then you can take off the attach angle fairing, and check frequently for corrosion.
Last edited by HarvardIV on Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.