bnt83
Final Approach
R model was just inflicted with more frequent eddy current inspection of lower wing spar caps than older cantilevers.
Cessna 400
- Thread starter jfrye01
- Start date
R model was just inflicted with more frequent eddy current inspection of lower wing spar caps than older cantilevers.
bnt83
Final Approach
I agree. One owner right now is budgeting a FWF overhaul and looking at roughly $60k-70k. I'm pretty sure they have a 1600 hr or 1800 hr TBO. (I'm aware TBO isn't required but still.)
Last edited:
jfrye01
Pre-takeoff checklist
Stupid question, but what's the difference between P210N and P210R?
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Jaybird180
Final Approach
After the guy said he was going with the P210 in post #72, why am I reading several posts of people invalidating his choice? That's not right.
You might think you're being helpful, but youre not. Each and EVERY airplane is a compromise and has its pro/cons. Lay off it once the guy has made up his mind. Sheesh....
You might think you're being helpful, but youre not. Each and EVERY airplane is a compromise and has its pro/cons. Lay off it once the guy has made up his mind. Sheesh....
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,006
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
TSIOs get expensive as does a firewall forward on them.
Great...
What was the basis? Are they starting to see more problems? Did they put a life limit on the airframe like a P-Baron?
bnt83
Final Approach
Great...
I'm unfamiliar with the P Barron.
They (Cessna) has been very busy writing SIDS for every model from 100 series to 400 series. The 210 (cantilevers) were issued a new, never-been-seen-before on a legacy Cessna, Airworthiness Limitation section in the service manual, that was approved by the FAA (FAA signature of the cover), which is the eddy current inspection requirements. The early spars were made from a different series of alloy than the later ones and the inspection intervals reflect that (it says right in there which alloys they were made from but I can't remember and being lazy).
Each SID list a "theoretical" life limit or 13,000 hrs with no calendar life limit believe.
I guess (cant remember the exact # for sure) they found 6 cracked lower spar caps world wide near the wing roots as a result of an emergency AD for visual inspection. I saw a powerpoint that lists one of the spars as being 95% severed which leads me to question where they got that wing (out of a junkyard or flying airplane?)
The sad part, each of the cracked birds had a hard life, most had 1X,XXX hours on them, pipeline/survey type jobs.
Last edited:
Interesting, thanks. The P-Baron has a 10,000hr life limit on the airframe IIRC, at that point it turns into a pumpkin, I don't believe there is any inspection for extension. Is that 13,000hr number a suggestion or a deadline?
bnt83
Final Approach
So far the SIDs is not a regulatory thing, just a MM rev.
bnt83
Final Approach
You'll be happy to know that the SIDs go EFFING crazy with eddy current. Beechcraft was happy to use dye penetrant on the carry thru spar cracking, but not Cessna - we're too good for that.
For instance
D637-1TR9 (100 Series 1963-1968)
Model 150 Serial Numbers 644, 649, 15059701 thru 15069308,
Model F150 Serial Numbers F150-0001 thru F150-0389,
Model 172 Serial Numbers 639, 17249545 thru 17257161,
Model F172 Serial Numbers F172-0001 thru F172-0559,
Model P172 Serial Numbers P17257120 thru P17257188,
Model FP172 Serial Numbers FP172-0001 thru FP172-0003,
Model 182 Serial Numbers 18254424 thru 18259305,
Model A182 Serial Numbers A182-0001 thru A182-0116Requires Eddy Current on the nose gear torque links every 3000 hrs or 5 years, whichever is first.
D. Inspect the nose gear upper torque link for cracks in the area of the stop block and the flanges of the “I”
section of the link, using surface eddy current inspection. Refer to Section 2A-13-01 Non-destructive
Inspection Methods and Requirements, Eddy Current Inspection - Surface Inspection, for additional
instructions.
Interesting. I wonder how many of these SIDs are driven by the insurance companies?
bnt83
Final Approach
Or are they trying to steer stuff away from shop that don't have a few thou $$$ in equipment and training just for crack detection.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
FWF would include the engine, the turbo, the exhaust system and all accessories as well as the prop, plus labor.
60-70k would be about right.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
The basis for all of the Cessna SIDS are very simple, liability, sales and lawyers.
Cessna never intended these airplanes to have an unlimited life. With the legal culture of the US they are flying lawsuits, no matter what causes the accident. Also, by people keeping old models flying it lessens the market for newer models.
Cessna never intended these airplanes to have an unlimited life. With the legal culture of the US they are flying lawsuits, no matter what causes the accident. Also, by people keeping old models flying it lessens the market for newer models.
bnt83
Final Approach
Yep. He wants a fresh start, probably the cheapest way to go. Doing stuff one thing at a time wastes a lot of downtime, access, R&R etc.
All those planes are far older than 14 years, so it's not particularly their liability that is the concern.
Yep, if you need dispatch reliability for business purposes, just go new with FWF.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
BS. Anytime one crashes, the lawyers will sue the manufacturer, the engine manufacturer, the prop manufacturer, the avionics manufacturer, anyone who serviced the airplane, etc, etc, etc.
Even if it doesn't see a court, it's still expensive to settle.
An aging airframe with outstanding inspections is a lawyers dream. If Cessna stacks enough intrusive and expensive inspections on an airframe, then eventually the plane is not viable and goes away.
bnt83
Final Approach
Its like the courts are the managers of a day care center...
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/red-bull-drinkers-can-claim-10-over-gives-you-wings-n221901
The manufactures do not self insure to the best of my knowledge.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Well, duh!:
Do you think their insurance providers provide free policies?
What happens to premiums every time they have to pay out in a lawsuit? Think those premiums remain the same?
Well, duh!:
Do you think their insurance providers provide free policies?
What happens to premiums every time they have to pay out in a lawsuit? Think those premiums remain the same?
The premiums on the old stuff are already paid and done. The current premiums are set by current production and therefor are limited by market competition.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Jaybird180
Final Approach
I think it's ridiculous that the "American Consumer" doesn't know hyperbole in advertising. I'm not sure I want the $10.
That's the typical reaction when people finally understand how the insurance industry works.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
I have a good understanding of insurance and how litigation works.....
You, however....
I have a good understanding of insurance and how litigation works.....
You, however....
I understand well enough to be licensed in the field.