Strut AD?

[Len Petterson]

Re: Strut AD?

Shipping the struts I would use large paper tubes and bubble rapp and some wood if you consider shipping it and paying for Fraigile Gods handling.
I drove mine to the test but it was only 1/2 hr one way.
Make an appontment with the tester and takeing a day of work could be worth it. Dont matter one way or the other it will cost money, part of being a owner.
Hank, a Question for you:
Structual testing would it require Tension load only or Tension and Compression load? and to what load?
Gross weigth * standard load factor/ number of struts?
A hydrualic rig for both loads can easly be dune, but there is always the risk with overloading and causing a fracture what will show up later, maybe even in flight.
How do you seal the struts? An O-ring under the adjustment yoke locknut?
And welding all the drainholes in the front one?
Len

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Strut AD?

Len,
I looked at using a "paper" carpet tube, but based on what the guys at Wag said there is a problem with anything round rolling around in shipment and tubes are clumsy to load. If it's hard to handle, the dock workers will take it out on the cargo (not Wags, but the shipping company could). Kind of makes sense. Make it square so it doesn't roll (either a square box or a tube with triangle wood strips to keep it from rolling) put handles on it so it is easy to carry and move and mark it well as fragile so "maybe" they won't throw it in the truck and stack anvils on top of it. I will make sure to say a prayer to the "Fraigile Gods" (MAN! Am I glad I'm not the only one spell checlker does that to!) to watch over my struts.

Wish I lived close enough and could take some time to be there. I have been talking to them about a test rig they could use to verify there is enough material to be safe. Nice simple design that can't apply more than a safe load on the struts (if they aren't compromised already, in which case you WANT them to break!) I don't mind the money for something like struts. It's just that I already know they are good and the required visual inspection can fail struts that are actually perfectly serviceable. The inspection they have to do is WAY TOO conservative, and a pull test can prove that. Proof testing is just that. It PROVES the part can take the load. Inspection requires judgment and even the BEST inspector can make a mistake, or the guy who established the inspection requirement may not actually have hands on experience doing inspections. In the military "inspection" was ALWAYS less trusted than a test. Part of my career (long time ago) was doing NDI on the A-6. I had to deal with a LOT of very good engineers who really didn't understand NDI. There were a lot of parts we had to fight to save because the engineer didn't really understand that a PROOF TEST "PROVES" the part can take the load. I NEVER had a part I accepted (I'm an engineer too and I could over-ride their rejection. I was the boss) fail in service, and anyone who knows me knows I am VERY conservative. I threw away a lot of parts I would trust MY life to, but not someone else.
The test I am recommending to WAG is a tension pull (long column buckling is the critical load in the struts, but that has nothing to do with the corrosion we are fighting, and even the FAA test doesn't address it. It's not something you need to worry about if your jury struts are rigged right). The tension loading requires a fixture to apply ~1.5 times the max design load from the factory. I didn't use hydraulics because there is always the chance the pressure could be wrong or ????. I used a weight hung from an arm to apply the load. Simple enough for anyone to do the test with almost no chance of screwing it up. I don't remember the load off hand but these struts are strong enough to lift a house off it's foundation. We won't be breaking any of them unless they are rusted clear through. We are no where near the elastic limit either so the test shouldn't be a problem with starting cracks.
As far as sealing them, Wag has a very nice approved process where they fully seal the strut with new welded fittings so they are just as good as the factory struts (and with their workmanship, probably better). From what I have seen it isn't with "O" rings or seals. It is all welded up and sealed and I think the threaded adjustment is all new. Really a first class job.

Hank

No, I have no connection to Wag. I just think they have a class operation.

[Guest]

Re: Strut AD?

My univair struts came in a round cardboard tube and it went well. Was pretty sturdy/heavy.

Dave

[mikeg]

Re: Strut AD?

A Ha
Knew if I waited long enough there would be hope for my like new front struts.

Now to get the front ones modified and purchase new rear ones

Hey Storman,
Good to hear from you. How have you been. I see you have moved.
Merry Christmas
Mike
NC29804

[jim cooper]

Re: Strut AD?

Please explain to me this AD. Seaplane on floats, (ONE ONLY) has wing collapse in flight. FAA goes nuts (Per Usual) and insists that ALL Taylorcraft struts be carefully checked every 4 years. Why not Champ struts? why not Cubs,? why not Luscombs? and on and on. Are THEIR struts that much different? I don't think so. Not being a mechanic but old enough to know better I think it was a total over reaction. The AI who did my annual in July said " READ this AD carefully. If your T-craft has never been on floats or on skis, you don't have to comply." Is this true? The FAA is slowly destroying General Aviation. JC

[Dano"T"]

Re: Strut AD?

ALL Taylorcrafts must comply....you just get longer between inspections if your plane was never on floats or skis. And if you check around...you'll see that Piper has had a strut AD for years....just easier compliance. I agree though....It's a bummer......I'd feel fine if it were a one timer even. Oh well......

[LostnSpace]

Re: Strut AD?

[. The AI who did my annual in July said " READ this AD carefully. If your T-craft has never been on floats or on skis, you don't have to comply." Is this true? The FAA is slowly destroying General Aviation. JC[/QUOTE]

I'll go along with your AI only on the point of "read it for yourself", nobody gets away scott free on this, but you do have a few options, do a search on this site, there are lots of discussions, but the best advice I can give you is to get a copy of the AD, or go to FAA.gov and look it up there, don't forget the strut attach fittings need to be inspected per AD also- that is the part that failed on the seaplane, not the sturts, one other thing, it is the owners responsibility to be current on AD's, so get after it - wish you the best, LnS.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: Strut AD?

The "seaplane" on floats was an "experimental" certification and had nothing to do with the strut inspection . That was the reason for the "attach fitting" inspection. See photo , if yours looks like that , don't fly it!

[Robert Lees]

Re: Strut AD?

Please explain to me this AD. Seaplane on floats, (ONE ONLY) has wing collapse in flight. FAA goes nuts (Per Usual) and insists that ALL Taylorcraft struts be carefully checked every 4 years. Why not Champ struts? why not Cubs,? why not Luscombs? and on and on. Are THEIR struts that much different? I don't think so. Not being a mechanic but old enough to know better I think it was a total over reaction. The AI who did my annual in July said " READ this AD carefully. If your T-craft has never been on floats or on skis, you don't have to comply." Is this true? The FAA is slowly destroying General Aviation. JC

The strut AD came about following the Factory SB, which was issued before the accident.

What followed the accident was the fitting AD.

The two are not related in other than timescale.