EMERGENCY AD, T-6 ATTACH ANGLES

[N3Njeff]

Well if it too much problem for some owners, I am sure that there are a few BT-13 owners that might want to trade up! I can ask my uncle if he wants to.............low time Covington on it to boot!!

[Jack Cook]

Brad,
I think we should get Steve to move up here to the Pac NW. He'd fit right in with the whole Cascade bunch. What do ya think? Granley, Williams, Morley, Reynolds, Janes and Patterson!

[marine air]

I think i's time that someone buy the rights from Rockwell abd start manufacturing new parts for the most popular N.A.A aircraft at a real aircraft factory. These wonderful old airplanes are going to be 70 YEARS OLD!! in a few years.
I got my T-6 checkout in 1997, and attended the T-6 maintenace seminar at Oshkosh that year. The speaker was a South African Air Force flight instructor that had a couple thousand hours in type. Most of his lecture was on how very old these once rugged aircraft are getting. He talked a lot about the wing attach angles and the maneuvers they had deleted from their training curriculum, like snap rolls and other high G manueuvers.
Another gentleman, an IA spoke about the 1993 Oshkosh Award winner, that when they did an annual, had never had it's tailplane attach bolts changed from when it left the factory 50 years prior! He passed some of the bolts around and only about one person in twenty new how old the spar bolts etc. were on their aircraft. I highly recommend everyone attend the free seminars. They also have them on the T-34, P-51, T-28, etc. I quit playing "top gun" in a lot of these old aircraft after attending a few of these seminars.
Also, a friend of mine who owns a T-6D, stated that the T-6/ Pratt& Whitney, combination have been so rugged and reliable that unlike the T-34's Mustangs, and Sea Fury's most them have not been thoroughly restored and really gone through. People have just sprayed the cockpit, added a great paint job and "roar off into the sunset."
It's time a manufacturer buys the rights and starts manufacturing a full line of support items.

[Ollie]

Simple.

You either maintain the aeroplane in accordance with the builder's maintenance manual or the Canadian Aviation Regs. Usually, the builder's word has dominance, but for the wee stuff, we use what we call a 625 form and that's a standard annual inspection (same as on a Cessna, etc.).

[Old Shep]

Am in the midst of checking my airplane and the CAF SNJ assigned here in Midland. Initial visual checks show everything to be good. I agree with the majority sentiment that a 200 hour repetitive inspection is reasonable.
Another owner's perspective.
Bill Coombes

[snj-5]

asfej;

Last edited by snj-5 on Fri Jun 10, 2005 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[HarvardIV]

N/A

Last edited by HarvardIV on Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[jgrifft6]

Reading the Warbird Adventures site, it sounds like the 200 hrs time b/w inspections isn't set in stone yet. I guess they're going to collect reports and cracked angles and then decided where to go from there. I personally think that 200 hrs is a little too much considering two failures in 30 years, none while in general civilian use. We'll see how it all works out though.
Jason

[Scott Rose]

Now this is a safety issue and people are sensitive about it.

Harvard IV has a right to his opinion. Right or wrong, its his and he has a right to express it. I personally don't agree with his statements and think they are irresponsible but he still has a right to express them. We don't need a flame war everytime someone says something we don't agree with. If you disagree, then express it in a coherent and publically acceptable manner. Name calling will not be tolerated and if you respond to a post with ridicule then I will delete it. We are friggin adults here and I am getting sick and tired of having to deal with this over and over again.

Please be civil with each other. I don't want to have to lock this thread.

[Broken-Wrench]

Don't blow a gasket Harvard! You might have the sense to check your angles but some people only check what is required of them and no more. They have the mind set that if it's not in writing it don't mean S*#t.

[HarvardIV]

Ok Guys:

I follow the rules, but the point I was making was about new heavy handed regulations that I disagree with. If there is an AD I will comply. However, I'm not happy that they weren't created fairly, and that the feds didn't really consider what the "clubs, and operators" had said. .

[HarvardIV]

Hey Rob:

That's fair, and I admit after looking back at a few of my posts I was too angry. So my feelings weren't conveyed correcctly. I think I posted in anger at the situation. Make no mistake I follow the rules, but I strongly dislike new more restrictive one come up. So that's what I was mad about, and I overkilled it.

[HarvardIV]

HarvardIV wrote:
Bela:

Well said. We've got liberals and conservatives involved in this discussion. The liberals obviously want to agree that the FAA will "take care of us". Let just through their stupid solution at the problem, and be done with it. Us conservatives say we have common sense enough to check for the darned cracks w/o the mother goose FAA to make sure we help justify their CYA'n existence.


My comments have nothing to do with politics, and I'm neither
liberal nor conservative (I don't need to belong to some group
to make decisions for myself).

I'm also not saying the angles shouldn't be inspected, just opining
that a repatitive inspection for the entire fleet may have been
a bit drastic.

I will allow as how (as some have pointed out), the inspection
is not that big of a deal (especially for me, since everything is
being drilled apart and completely rebuilt from the ground-up
on my SNJ).

Ok Bela:

I never said politics, I said liberal or conservative, and that means in large amounts, or to conserve. A statement about "Republican or Democrat" would mean politics. Again, some of us would have preferred that the AD would've been a one time dye pen. deal, and then a 10x magnifying glass for the remainder of the inspections. This w/o having to repaint the things, totally wasteful overkill in my opinion.

[snj-5]

[quote="Matt Gunsch"]Well they did it, and it is what we did not want, a reoccuring blacklight inspection:
DATE: June 8, 2005
AD #: 2005-12-51

<snip>

I've had a little time to let emotions (aka dander!) subside, and as
such, I now have what I hope are constructive questions.

What is it that "we" asked for, that was not given to us? (I'm genuinely
curious....?).

Who makes up the collective "we"? (I can make a fairly educated
guess, but again, I'm curious).

I'd kinda like to know what the input was from these types of folks:

Warbirds of America (EAA)
NATA
Commemerative Air Force
and other such groups.

I'm basically done arguing about and discussing the merits of the
AD as written (it's been issued, it obviously needs to be followed to the
letter), I'd just like to learn more about how the process works (i.e.,
something really unfortunate happens, the feds listen to input from
various groups, and then make a determination / decision). How
much "weight" (if any) does input from outside sources carry?

Bela P.

[HarvardIV]

I'd just like to learn more about how the process works (i.e.,
something really unfortunate happens, the feds listen to input from
various groups, and then make a determination / decision). How
much "weight" (if any) does input from outside sources carry?

Very Little. They are the Feds, so they decide what they want to do.