Announcement

**crispy critter** · 04-14-2007, 08:24

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

Guys and gals,let me be the first to voice my opinion and piss everyone off.I'm sorry but I do feel this is an area that needs to be addressed.As most of you know I have owned several t-crafts, both flying and projects. I recently went on a scavenger hunt to find struts for Crispy,I even bought 3 project t-crafts that came with extra struts. I have noticed in several of the post war front struts(the front seem to be the most common for rust in what I have seen) that rust is becoming a big issue around the drain hole in the bottom of the strut.I have also seen it in some rear struts but mostly in the front. I just bought a 1941 flying project a while back with tired fabric and rusty struts....after getting it home I noticed rust around the drain holes in all four (pre war) struts. Upon closer inspection with a sharp punch I was shocked to find out just how bad the rust really was. I was able to enlarge the drain hole in both front struts up to an inch in diameter without using force!!!! The rusty struts were not a surprise to me,I bought this airplane knowing it had some rust issues in the struts causing it to fail annual.It had some other minor issues as well but this was the main reason I think. I just couldn't believe how easy it was to enlarge the rust holes in a set of struts that didn't appear to be that dangerous. After this I checked a couple other post war struts that I had with almost the same results( not as big of a hole).....one strut I checked didn't even show any sign of external rust but I was still able to punch a hole in it and it was certainly rusting from the inside out!! One more area to watch is under the jury strut clamps. I have found several struts with light to heavy rust pitting under the clamps. I'll try to post some pics of my findings sometime later in the week.
Be careful out there guys and make sure to check your struts closely even if you have to touch up the paint afterward.

**Forrest Barber** · 04-14-2007, 12:06

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

I totally agree and it has "pissed" me off too that some members will then sell these struts to other folks. IF the strut is unairworthy , then destroy it. The FAA contact man & I discussed the failure of the Malfunction & Defect Report ( M&D reports) system. Lets come up ith a sensible system for detecting bad struts. Reember the Taylorcraft Strut is a better design than the other ones. I do believe that we can drill a hole into the lower end way off the neutral axis and use a bore scope. We can also get rid of them that "rattle" with rust. Do your comments if you will to the FAA.

**AndyDuke** · 04-14-2007, 13:44

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

This may or may not be relevent but I had my struts tested about 4 years ago and they were all OK. I have the paperwork to back this up, but since this paperworks pre-dates the service buletin, would I still have to inspect? As I say this may not be relevent as I'm in the UK, but you never know.

**Pearson** · 04-14-2007, 14:31

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

If Taylorcraft is out of business, how can they issue a service bulletin?

Does anyone have any idea how much it costs to have the struts checked with eddy current?

**crispy critter** · 04-14-2007, 16:27

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

This has been something Harry has been trying to pass threw almost ever since he opened the doors again. As for cost,it depends on what type of inspection you have done. The cheapest way in the loooonnnggg run might be to replace them with new ones.....but that is very expensive,about $2500 for a complete set,then you have to replace the jury strut clamps as well.

**Ron Greene** · 04-14-2007, 19:12

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

The airworthiness concern sheet states all Taylorcrafts. Taylorcraft (Harry Ingram) did not own the Type Certificate (A-746) nor have anything to do with the DCO-65 (L-2, L-2A, L-2B, L-2M).

So why is the concern for all Taylorcraft's. Now, Forrest states he hopes the factory mailed out the service bulletins to everyone. I can guarantee you the Factory did not mail out the service bulletins to everyone and probably didn't mail out any at all. I will go further and guarnatee he didn't mail them to the owners of L-2's that he didn't even own the TC for.

Harry saw an oppurtunity to keep his defunct factory afloat and put this service bulletin out in hopes of making a buck selling struts to all the Taylorcraft owners. Now there is no factory, never was in my book, and he has ripped off Taylorcraft owners, prospective buyers, and now has left the perfect legacy that will haunt the Type for years to come.

Yes I agree, inspect your struts, replace as neccesary and move on. How many failures have occured in the past? Taylorcraft Foundation, help out the masses with a procedure that will provide the most cost effective means of accomplishing an inspection and satisfy all regulatory concerns and let us move on.

Ron Greene

**Hank Jarrett** · 04-15-2007, 09:49

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

Can't we repair bad struts by welding the end parts from the corroded ones to new streamlined tube? There is nothing in the "Owner Manufactured Parts" regs that limits us to "non-structural". Like the other parts we are getting together to make, why can't we do struts? If we make struts I would want a pretty substantial fixture and a proof test after welding. This would be a good chance for the owner to learn some good skills and processes for (probably) less than the cost of "new" struts and not have to go to the HUGE new struts.
I agree with Forrest that if you have a bad strut you need to make sure it NEVER goes back on a plane but don't destroy it. Cut the end fittings off about a foot from the ends so we can make new struts if they can be re-used. Only making the end pieces of the strut and controlling the length are hard.
Hank

**alwaysoar** · 04-15-2007, 13:46

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

I believe (stress BELIEVE) that if the ends are used to make new struts that constitutes a repair, much as is done with exhausts where the only original parts in the exhaust you send off are the flanges. Am I wrong?

**Hank Jarrett** · 04-15-2007, 18:03

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

That's the way I would see it.
Hank

**crispy critter** · 04-15-2007, 19:34

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

Yep,and when your done replacing all the pipes in the exhaust you can then replace the flanges.LOL Kinda like the guy who claims to own the original axe used by George Washington to chop down the cherry tree....he swears it's the original axe however the handle has been replaced about a dozen times and the head replaced at least twice.

**Robert Lees** · 04-16-2007, 07:47

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

The Airworthiness Concern Sheet is a quite normal and measured response by the FAA to issues raised by Taylorcraft. It appears to be a simple request to the flying public at large for information to support a future decision by the FAA.

If I were the FAA, I would do no less.

All of us (or our mechanics) inspect the struts in some manner at least once a year, I hope, so we are all aware of the potential for corrosion.

I would suggest that if no information (from us) is forthcoming, then they may well rely solely upon the information supplied to them by Taylorcraft. So we need to report to Mr McAnaul our findings & concerns.

The letter is also asking for suggestions for "Alternate Inspection/repair Procedures" which is surely one are in which we can contribute? I will be writing to state that I conduct a thorough visual/icepick inspection on my struts every annual, and that I consider this to be suitable preventive action.

Wholesale & worldwide replacement of struts is not likely to be required if a reasonable inspection scheme is devised.

Although there are no recorded incidents involving failure of the struts causing damage/injury/death (I think), it will only be a matter of time before a rattly, rusty, holed strut does fail. How would we suggest that we avoid this?

**Robert Lees** · 04-16-2007, 08:11

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

Here's the Service Bulletin. Note it is only applicable to A-696 and 1A9 aeroplanes.

Attached Files

Taylorcraft SB2007-001.doc (304.0 KB, 282 views)

**Ragwing nut** · 04-16-2007, 08:53

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

First of all Harry can't issue a potential AD against the L-2's because he is not the TC holder of them so they "should" not be affected by this potential AD. Secondly, a negative ED or X-ray inspection should eliminate the AD in my opinion. I will save my pissed off comments for another time. How are the new rear struts sealed the way they are designed? I will be fowarding my comments to the FAA regarding this. I would also like to know where the struts that were sampled came from and how they were selected. I have a large stack of struts here, but I am smart enough not to install them cause most sound like rain sticks.

Mike

**alwaysoar** · 04-16-2007, 09:43

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

Wasn't the factory defunct when the SB was issued? Is the "factory" authorized to sell new struts? Did the Piper compliance procedure require eddy current or ultrasound? I don't think so, so that the Piper procedure ought to suffice. I am willing to buy new struts even without going through all this testing just to be on the safe side, but Univair's are expensive and apparently it takes a long time to get them.

Announcement

Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment