I have a question

[guns68]

I'm looking at a '46 BC-12D to buy. In an email with the owner he mentioned that the attach points need to be x-rayed. I have been keeping up with the strut and attach fitting AD's and I can't find anything that talks about requiring that level of NDI on the attach points. Is this something else, or am I not reading the AD correctly? either way what does this cost or am I getting into some trouble I'd be better of without? Please help this new guy (and first time aircraft buyer) out.
Thanks

[VictorBravo]

Re: I have a question

There is one AD on the struts, and one AD on the lower fuselage attach fitting. There is no AD on the upper wing root attach fittings.

If you live near a decent size city, it will cost you a few hundred bucks to have both the struts lower ends AND the lower attach fitting X-Rayed.

The X-Ray can be done ON the airplane by a mobile X-Ray service. We had five done at one time here in Los Angeles A little bit of planning and a good X-Ray tech will be able to get both of the affected areas in the "picture"

If you are buying an airplane, make it part of the deal that the seller has this X-Ray done, or gives you financial credit for having it done. It SHOULD be done because once it is done it allows you to sleep at night. It also will increase the value of the airplane. It also will keep one more T-craft from falling out of the sky in pieces (if by some horrible series of events your airplane is corroded beyond all get-out, like the one up in the Northwest that started all this).

You should count on it costing you a few hundred dollars, not more than that. If the airplane is flyable you can even fly it to someplace where the mobile X-Ray can be done... and fly the airplane back out the same day.

Even in spite of a ridiculous AD and one tragic crash that had nothing to do with the AD, the Taylorcraft is pretty much the most trouble-free, AD-free, and low maintenance of all the old fabric taildraggers. So the effort and money is well spent.

[Larry Lyons]

Re: I have a question

Bill correct me if I am wrong but if the struts are already in compliance (and noted in the log book) all that is needed on the attach point is an inspection, right?
Larry

[Dick Smith]

Re: I have a question

guns68,
If you have any questions about testing of the attach points, you can call Alaska Industrial X-Ray, (907-344-4061) in Anchorage. Dick

[Jim Hartley]

Re: I have a question

We followed the service bulletin to comply with the AD. We scraped and cleaned the attach point and then scoped,corrosion proofed and repainted. Looks good.

I replaced my lift struts last year after the X-ray. One failed, one marginal.

Jim

[jim cooper]

Re: I have a question

help me with this. You mean that all the airplanes I've owned, Cessna 140, (2)195, Champ, 7ECA, Luscombe, Cub and now a T-craft by rights should ALL have been XRAYED? (The T-Craft was done before I bought it last year...BUT the attach points of the struts were not XRayed but carefully inspected when the aircraft was rebuilt (2008) IF the FAA was doing it CORRECTLY why wouldn't they mandate that ALL these old types have this done? What am I missing? I don't get it! JC

[Jim Hartley]

Re: I have a question

I think the X-ray option on the strut attach fitting is up to the the owner Jim... I am not a mechanic but I work very closely with my IA during the annual and I am confident that my aircraft is safe.

Jim

[Carrieve]

Re: I have a question

Maybe I read the AD's wrong, but the struts need the X-ray and the attach points on the fuselage need a boroscope inspection. Please correct me if I am wrong. I hate to think I bought a boroscope when I needed to X-ray the attach points on the lower longeron area.

[N96337]

Re: I have a question

You're right...don't worry.
JH

[flyguy]

Re: I have a question

NO X-RAY OF ATTACH POINTS IS REQUIRED.

Did I say that clearly enough? Chuckle.

Darryl

[guns68]

Re: I have a question

AYE AYE, Cap'n!

[VictorBravo]

Re: I have a question

IF the FAA was doing it CORRECTLY why wouldn't they mandate that ALL these old types have this done? What am I missing? I don't get it! JC

We were all missing something, except for my mentor L-2 Gary, who had been X-ray inspecting his L-2 every ten years just as a matter of course.

What we have been missing is that these airplanes are all 50 years older than the factories THOUGHT they would be when (at 10 or 15 years old) the airplane was traded in for a new one and SCRAPPED.

If you talked to CG Taylor or Dwane Wallace or Bill Piper today (via seance'), they would all be equally horrified and proud that these old dogs are still out there flying today. Remember these airplanes were covered in cotton and the NORMAL thing was to tear them down every five years and rebuild them. They had every reason to think that the thorough maintenance of their day (by knowledgeable mechanics and overseen by a knowledgeable and kind-hearted FAA) would extend into modern times.

The FAA has finally addressed the issue of "aging aircraft" with a very important and long overdue memo. The memo indicates that these airplanes need much more thorough maintenance and inspections now because of their age... and most importantly the memo addresses the need for more common sense and participation from the type clubs, which the FAA finally admits knows more about the airplanes than their new-era Affirmative Action inspectors do.

The net effect of:

• Airplanes that are 60+ years old
• Drastic improvements in fabric covering
• Old airplanes spending years outside
• Fewer "airplane people" in the FAA
• Airplanes built with minimal inspection access
• Less thorough maintenance and care by modern owners

Has resulted in a situation where one or two tragic losses have already occurred and more are waiting in the wings. More so than ever before, owners of vintage airplanes HAVE TO pay a lot closer attention that what would have been appropriate 20 or 40 years ago.

The fiasco with the Taylorcraft wing struts AD was 80% money-grubbing BS, but even I have to admit there was probably another 20% that was valid. (Valid by coincidence or valid by actual problems in the fleet... I'm not sure.)

So how this ties in with your question about the need to X-Ray all of your old airplanes, is that yes the FAA should be enforcing better and more thorough inspections. BUT, they should be enforcing the inspections in a manner that is do-able and cost-efficient, not a draconian emergency AD at the drop of a hat.

As mentioned previously, there are now better tools that allow very cost-effective inspections, educated owners can be easily certified to perform some of these inspections, etc. (the new video-probe-scope thingies)

On the X-Ray specifically, there are mobile X-Ray companies that can do the fuselage/strut inspections on the airplane like we did here.

What SHOULD Really be happening is that these mobile X-Ray companies should be showing up at every major and medium size fly-in around the country, and doing high volume work cheaply. The airplane owners have a built-in excuse to go to the fly-ins and might have been spending the money anyway. For another $100 or $150, while their airplane is already at (Watsonville, Oshkosh, Valdez, Sun N Fun) the X-Ray company can give the airplane skeleton a clean bill of health. The X-Ray company will make a fortune on the deal. The owners get a huge cut in their inspection costs. The FAA (and your grand-kids) gets more airplanes inspected and several tragedies prevented before they happen.

See there... you guys put up with my great big mouth for all these years, and I just came up with something that could save your bacon and save your wallet! I'm not such a jackass after all...

[jim cooper]

Re: I have a question

All answers made clear my question of x-rays and I appreciate your help. These old crates WERE built for 15 years max and I am a big proponent of safety. The fellow who used to annual my stearman in the 80's said ANY fabric aircraft, hangared or not should be re done every 15 years minimum to look at spars, ribs, tail section (rust) etc. He claimed humidity is also a big factor in aircraft storage and things can happen even in the hangar. I just never thought about struts much as a factor and I should have. Thanks for all you answers!jc

[Jim Hartley]

Re: I have a question

Absolutely right on Jim... My aircraft was stored for several years before being put back in service. I suspect that the degradation of the lift struts may be a result of how they were stored. My decision to replace them all. I had them X-rayed and one failed and one was marginal.

My aircraft was on its back a few years before I purchased it. I Know the professionals that replaced one spar and inspected the others. It was a deciding factor when I purchased the aircraft.

How do you know what is going on underneath the fabric until you strip it away and take a look? I think fifteen years is a good rule of thumb considering the longevity of todays coverings.

Jim

All answers made clear my question of x-rays and I appreciate your help. These old crates WERE built for 15 years max and I am a big proponent of safety. The fellow who used to annual my stearman in the 80's said ANY fabric aircraft, hangared or not should be re done every 15 years minimum to look at spars, ribs, tail section (rust) etc. He claimed humidity is also a big factor in aircraft storage and things can happen even in the hangar. I just never thought about struts much as a factor and I should have. Thanks for all you answers!jc

[RichardBoyer]

Re: I have a question

I'm not sure I agree with this 15 year guideline. There isn't much I can't see on my plane and I check it personally every year. It was totally restored 14 years ago and spent around a year outside up in Montana. Since then it has only been outside overnight at OSH. Internally everything is pristine. You can tell this by just taking a really good look. Not much is hidden on a Taylorcraft.

As for the struts, I had no problem taking them off and getting them X-rayed. The problem I have is that the AD procedure has you perform an anti corrosion process and then they still want you to recheck in 4 years. This is excessive! Especially if it passed fine after the first 15 (or 50 in most cases!). I can see every 10 years, but 4 is ridiculous.