DCO-65 lift strut

[jamieg]

Gents,

The DCO-65 (L-2M) is not covered by this AD as far as I can tell. Does it use the same struts as the aircraft that are affected or are they different? This airplane is on a different TCDS and I wonder if that is the only reason the DCO-65 is not covered.

Any information wold be appreciated.

Jamie

[ClipWing_T]

Re: DCO-65 lift strut

I was wondering the same thing about the DCO-L-2 series of planes.
I would suppose ,IF,there is a structural failure on the L-2's, then we start
all over again.........?? I have not not heard of any L-2 wing strut failures ......??
mike

[Ragwing nut]

Re: DCO-65 lift strut

Struts are different, and will not bolt up. Only the front strut actually bolts to the fuselage. I will bet they eventually get added to the AD.

Mike

[LostnSpace]

Re: DCO-65 lift strut

Struts are different, and will not bolt up. Only the front strut actually bolts to the fuselage. I will bet they eventually get added to the AD.

Mike

I agree with Mike, strut failure???, we don't need a strut failure to issue an AD.

LNS

[Chet Peek]

Re: DCO-65 lift strut

Now I have a dog in the fight. I fly a DC-65. The DC models are not covered for a very good reason. The main, front, strut is entirely open at the bottom end, so no water or trash can accumulate. You can even shine a light up and visually inspect the first foot or so. The smaller rear strut fastens to the front strut, not the fuselage. I have an old, but airworthy, one here in my shop and it is clean as a whistle. Also, the present Taylorcraft Company does not own the Type certificate for the DC models.

In my opinion it would not be prudent or necessary for the FAA to attach these models to the present AD. While originally made by the same company, the strut design is entirely different, so even the suggested testing methods would not be appropriate.

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: DCO-65 lift strut

I agree with Chet. (Chet being so knowledgable about Taylorcrafts that this is hardly a couragous act on my part.)
I ran a 5 ft. bore rod up my L2-A struts this weekend. I painted it with light machine oil and hoped to pick up some cosmetically important material... like rust. I got a little dust and some old oil... and that was it. I used about 7 clean patches a side and wiggled the patches into every little corner I could get to... (a 5 ft bore rod covers about 1/2 the whole strut) I found nothing out of the ordinary (Except a dead spider) Visual inspection complete. Visual Inspection shows all parts in good working order and condition. Aircraft returned to service.
As with every part, please check... and as they say, your mileage may vary.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[cpirrmann]

Re: DCO-65 lift strut

Good job Ed. Now , get this out to the fleet and produce an inspection manual and there won't be a need for any AD's.

[cpirrmann]

Re: DCO-65 lift strut

Who does own the type certificate?

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: DCO-65 lift strut

DCO-65/L2 Type is owned by the Pima County Air Museum
Tucson Az.

It seems to me the open bottom and closed top strut, like the L2 makes perfect sense in this case. Tomorrow (maybe Wed. I've got to get a longer yet narrow nossle for my air-unit) I'm going to blow some high pressure air up the strut. I'll do this over a clean towel and see if anything drops out. There's about a 2 inch opening at the bottom of these struts I have on the L2 that allow you plenty of room to work this stuff and play with these ideas. Actually, it seems to me that the DCO/L2 strut set up is the best for everybody... being that access for inspection and all moisture are easily controlled. (Although I'm not positive about those of us on floats in this case) The closed end units for sale, no matter if welded or capped in any other manner, are still not perfectly sealed. Moisture can still get in and you can't see it when it happen. Also all corrosion will reamin undetectable except by xray (or other exotic method) So much for my non-destructive method of testing.

About these mechanical/engineering issues I'm an idiot but this L2 strut makes sense to my puny brain.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[barnstmr]

Re: DCO-65 lift strut

Have any of you seen the following on the FAA website?

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/E9E362378608B2B486257341007893AE?OpenDocument&Highlight=dco-65

Not sure what this is? It states "Test". I wonder if something is pending here?

Airworthiness Directive
Show details for Federal Register InformationFederal Register Information
Hide details for Header InformationHeader Information
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
Docket No. 2007-CE-000; Amendment No. 39-7777; AD 2007-26-01
TEST - Arizona Aerospace Foundation
PDF Copy (If Available):
TEST
Hide details for Preamble InformationPreamble Information
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT
Hide details for Regulatory InformationRegulatory Information
Hide details for Footer InformationFooter Information
Hide details for CommentsComments

[LostnSpace]

Re: DCO-65 lift strut

Have any of you seen the following on the FAA website?

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/E9E362378608B2B486257341007893AE?OpenDocument&Highlight=dco-65

Not sure what this is? It states "Test". I wonder if something is pending here?

Airworthiness Directive
Show details for Federal Register InformationFederal Register Information
Hide details for Header InformationHeader Information
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
Docket No. 2007-CE-000; Amendment No. 39-7777; AD 2007-26-01
TEST - Arizona Aerospace Foundation
PDF Copy (If Available):
TEST
Hide details for Preamble InformationPreamble Information
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT
Hide details for Regulatory InformationRegulatory Information
Hide details for Footer InformationFooter Information
Hide details for CommentsComments

That 2007-26-01 looks off, seems like the latest I got was 2007-16-**
maybe they are just fishing to see what kind of response they get?, LNS

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: DCO-65 lift strut

Someone had written earlier that the L2s were being checked... perhaps Forrest made the comment? Anyway, it appears the FAA is covering their
bases. Which is to be expected.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[Ragwing nut]

Re: DCO-65 lift strut

I don't believe they should be included in this AD or any other. It is bad enough the incompetentcy that the people issuing the AD don't even know the differences in the airplanes they are writing AD's for to begin with. (ergo TG-6 conversion on AD). There is a hard enough time finding L-2 struts as it is.

Mike

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: DCO-65 lift strut

Should DCO-65 be included? Well they're NOT the same as the BC struts. That said, if our L2 struts are found wanting. Then an AD should apply. The DCO/L2 fleet is a small sub-set of a small Taylorcraft fleet. Checking to see that there is a difference is good. Adding L2s to the AD without understanding the distinction between the 2 different strut sets is bad... as in "add'em to cover our FAA butts and let god sort it out"... is not a good idea. I figure that the FAA must be asking the question (s). That is good. If they come up with a reasoned answer that is good too. So far we're (DCOs)not on the AD and I presume that is for an additional good reason. If we will be included some day... then likely Univair etc... will build'em and they'll be as plentiful as bugs bodies on my wings.

Last weekend the FAA issued an emergency Slat AD on all 737's built after 1997. They must know something about planes built before and after 1997 to make that discrimination. We can only hope that with the information developed here and by their own means... they're working on a good solution. No reason to jump ahead and create unneccesary anxiety.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[jamieg]

Re: DCO-65 lift strut

Thank you all for the information. This is my first time using the forum. Great experience.

Jamie