Tweet
FORGIVE ME FATHER FOR I HAVE SINNED.
Please forgive me
I stole this from unknowing parties But as Mercedes Benz Said
" some things in life are just too important not to share"
This guy has always been one of my hero's After Forrest of course> Cause Forrest has a cuter tush
Like I always SAID making them bigger is the way to GO
Number 4 is my favorite
.
On the struts, don't go to general quarters just yet. I have several decades of experience doing NDI inspections using X-Ray, ultra-sonic, Eddy current, Neutron radiography, punch testing and probably many more that just don't come to mind right away. The one thing all the gang have in common is LOTS of lack of knowledge of what they are talking about. We can hope the FAA guys will get some straight skinny before they make a decision (but I'm not going to hold my breath on that either). I don't plan to jump in to the conversation because it will just be one more voice being drowned out by all the "opinions".
A few "facts":
1. NONE of the techniques listed on the Taylorcraft site are appropriate to determine corrosion!
2. Neutron radiography DOES detect corrosion and can tell you how thick it, and the base metal, are. Unfortunately, it is probably the most dangerous method I have ever used and I don't think it is even legal any more, much less affordable.
3. The ONLY way to be sure the strut is clear of corrosion (sealed or not) would be to hot dip it in solvent to remove all of the coatings and bore scope the ID and inspect the outside, noting ALL the pits. Then you would need to MEASURE the thickness in each pit. How much money do you have?
4. WHO CARES if there are pits and corrosion AS LONG AS THE STRUT IS CAPABLE OF CARRYING THE FULL DESIGN LOAD!!!!!
5. NO ONE has suggested what looks OBVIOUS to me. Clean the strut inside and out. Look for severe corrosion. Treat and paint the struts INSIDE AND OUT. PROOF LOAD the strut to design load + the safety margin. GO FLY! Do a visual borescope of the ID paint every 4 or 5 years and re-proof load if there is deterioration of the paint.
6. The FAA is famous for doing screw ball inspections that don't really prove anything, just so they can say they "did something". If that happens, it doesn't matter. We do what they say (and then I clean my struts, inspect, paint and proof load them, because I don't want to die).
The other thing is, there is a REASON there has never been a Taylorcraft lost from a strut failure. The plane was designed with pretty small struts (the original ones on our planes). When the dies wore out, the CAR (now FARs) allowed you to go UP one size for a replacement without re-doing the stress analysis. This has happened MANY times, each time with a new, larger strut. Go look at a NEW Taylorcraft and the AFT strut is BIGGER than our front struts. The front struts are HUGE! Even corroded there is a lot of excess strength. We have been lucky in our community and I suspect a big part of it is the struts are so over strength that they are pulled from service and trashed because they LOOK bad long before they are weakened enough to fail. That is why Harry has a whole storage space full of UNFAILED corroded struts. There hasn't been one broken EVEN WITH HOLES corroded through them. Notice NONE of those terrible struts was involved in a crash.
I have sent a lot of this to Forrest and offered to help define a realistic, safe inspection, but for now, don't panic.
Just keep reading and hope the FAA sees reason.
Name withheld unless he gives me permission to release it
Untill then ' "I KNOW NOTHING, NOTHING" of the Mystery writer
Please forgive me
I stole this from unknowing parties But as Mercedes Benz Said
" some things in life are just too important not to share"
This guy has always been one of my hero's After Forrest of course> Cause Forrest has a cuter tush
Like I always SAID making them bigger is the way to GO
Number 4 is my favorite
.
On the struts, don't go to general quarters just yet. I have several decades of experience doing NDI inspections using X-Ray, ultra-sonic, Eddy current, Neutron radiography, punch testing and probably many more that just don't come to mind right away. The one thing all the gang have in common is LOTS of lack of knowledge of what they are talking about. We can hope the FAA guys will get some straight skinny before they make a decision (but I'm not going to hold my breath on that either). I don't plan to jump in to the conversation because it will just be one more voice being drowned out by all the "opinions".
A few "facts":
1. NONE of the techniques listed on the Taylorcraft site are appropriate to determine corrosion!
2. Neutron radiography DOES detect corrosion and can tell you how thick it, and the base metal, are. Unfortunately, it is probably the most dangerous method I have ever used and I don't think it is even legal any more, much less affordable.
3. The ONLY way to be sure the strut is clear of corrosion (sealed or not) would be to hot dip it in solvent to remove all of the coatings and bore scope the ID and inspect the outside, noting ALL the pits. Then you would need to MEASURE the thickness in each pit. How much money do you have?
4. WHO CARES if there are pits and corrosion AS LONG AS THE STRUT IS CAPABLE OF CARRYING THE FULL DESIGN LOAD!!!!!
5. NO ONE has suggested what looks OBVIOUS to me. Clean the strut inside and out. Look for severe corrosion. Treat and paint the struts INSIDE AND OUT. PROOF LOAD the strut to design load + the safety margin. GO FLY! Do a visual borescope of the ID paint every 4 or 5 years and re-proof load if there is deterioration of the paint.
6. The FAA is famous for doing screw ball inspections that don't really prove anything, just so they can say they "did something". If that happens, it doesn't matter. We do what they say (and then I clean my struts, inspect, paint and proof load them, because I don't want to die).
The other thing is, there is a REASON there has never been a Taylorcraft lost from a strut failure. The plane was designed with pretty small struts (the original ones on our planes). When the dies wore out, the CAR (now FARs) allowed you to go UP one size for a replacement without re-doing the stress analysis. This has happened MANY times, each time with a new, larger strut. Go look at a NEW Taylorcraft and the AFT strut is BIGGER than our front struts. The front struts are HUGE! Even corroded there is a lot of excess strength. We have been lucky in our community and I suspect a big part of it is the struts are so over strength that they are pulled from service and trashed because they LOOK bad long before they are weakened enough to fail. That is why Harry has a whole storage space full of UNFAILED corroded struts. There hasn't been one broken EVEN WITH HOLES corroded through them. Notice NONE of those terrible struts was involved in a crash.
I have sent a lot of this to Forrest and offered to help define a realistic, safe inspection, but for now, don't panic.
Just keep reading and hope the FAA sees reason.
Name withheld unless he gives me permission to release it
Untill then ' "I KNOW NOTHING, NOTHING" of the Mystery writer