Damaged crinkled firewall 172H

R

Rick Paull

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
May 8, 2023
Messages
1
Display Name
Display name:
Rick
I have just purchased a 1967 172H that had a bad landing resulting in the nose wheel has been forced to the left and has put a crinkle in the firewall , forced a crinkle on the outside exterior panel on the left side as well I think the wheel must be aft as there is signs of distortion where your heels rest behind the rudder pedals on both sides… is this repairable or should I part the plane out? It has a lot going for it this plane with only 1900ttsn.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0215.jpeg
    IMG_0215.jpeg
    2 MB · Views: 100
  • IMG_0217.jpeg
    IMG_0217.jpeg
    1.4 MB · Views: 100
"I pop those in and out all the time!" lol Just kidding.
With the price of a 172 today I bet it can be repaired economically?

I soloed and flew my PPL check ride along with hundreds of other students in this 172S .
It had a fresh engine put in shortly before this repair while I was training in it. I got a quick glimpse of the work in progress both during the engine swap and then the firewall repair. The school had other trainers to keep us on track.
051_1.jpg

This repair was extensive and took months.
046_2.jpg

052_1.jpg

050_1.jpg
 
Last edited:
I agree with Bell. Presume OP would not actually do the repair.

It will take longer and cost more than planned.

Likely the best option be to let Insurance Company take it () if he

has Hull Coverage. Or sell as is.

I’m sure there are folks that would want it.
 
Rick Paull said:
I have just purchased a 1967 172H that had a bad landing resulting in the nose wheel has been forced to the left and has put a crinkle in the firewall , forced a crinkle on the outside exterior panel on the left side as well I think the wheel must be aft as there is signs of distortion where your heels rest behind the rudder pedals on both sides… is this repairable or should I part the plane out? It has a lot going for it this plane with only 1900ttsn.
Click to expand...
It’s repairable but will take some $$$ and time.
 
I have a picture of the J3 Cub I learned to fly in after it got hit by a tornado in 1971. It looked like a wadded up ball of wire and tissue paper yet it is still on the register and flying to this day. Pretty much anything can be fixed, sometimes people start with just a data plate.
 
Rick Paull said:
I have just purchased a 1967 172H that had a bad landing resulting in the nose wheel has been forced to the left and has put a crinkle in the firewall , forced a crinkle on the outside exterior panel on the left side as well I think the wheel must be aft as there is signs of distortion where your heels rest behind the rudder pedals on both sides… is this repairable or should I part the plane out? It has a lot going for it this plane with only 1900ttsn.
Click to expand...
Here is my plane after a bad landing. It got fixed up with hammer and dolly and duct tape.
005.jpg
 
Probably most of the C-172s that were used in training have had this repair done.
 
Pinecone said:
Probably most of the C-172s that were used in training have had this repair done.
Click to expand...
Nope. Not even close. I worked on many flight training 172s, including some from the 1960s, and never encountered a rebuilt one. This is a myth similar to the old "all 180s and 185s have been groundlooped at some time." That isn't true, either.

That damage is very expensive to repair. The OP mentions this:

Rick Paull said:
...as there is signs of distortion where your heels rest behind the rudder pedals on both sides…
Click to expand...
The damage is to the firewall, the skin on the left forward fuselage, the floor, the structure under the floor, and the tunnel structure that supports that nosegear. That tunnel extends aft and has the fuel selector, trim wheel and other stuff in it. Expensive.
 
Dan Thomas said:
The damage is to the firewall, the skin on the left forward fuselage, the floor, the structure under the floor, and the tunnel structure that supports that nosegear. That tunnel extends aft and has the fuel selector, trim wheel and other stuff in it. Expensive.
Click to expand...
I’ve flown a plane that had that exact same description repaired.

At the end of the day its a roll of the dice on the repair costs vs aircraft market value.

Personally, if the numbers work, I’d say rebuild it for the fact that it keeps one more aircraft airworthy, but if they don’t work out, so be it.
 
Depending on the time on the engine, it might be worth more parted out.
 
My thought is it would be best to repair as a “ Winter Project”.

Few shops can devote techs to work on this continuously.

That would mean turning away regular customers for Annuals etc.

This would entail pulling wings for transport .
 
We had one with similar damage on the field. A mechanic friend was doing the repairs as a side job for the owner’s insurance company. I was helping him buck rivets one day when the insurance company started breathing down his neck about how long the job was taking and extra costs. The mechanic was doing a great job but he eventually got frustrated with the insurance company and ended up walking off. Told them to fix it themselves! They finally got it finished. It’s all good now. Just expect a lot of downtime.
 
You would have to figure the value of the plane after the repair,taking cost of repair into consideration. If the airplane has old avionics and may need paint and interior,part it out.
 
Rick Paull said:
I have just purchased a 1967 172H that had a bad landing resulting in the nose wheel has been forced to the left and has put a crinkle in the firewall , forced a crinkle on the outside exterior panel on the left side as well I think the wheel must be aft as there is signs of distortion where your heels rest behind the rudder pedals on both sides… is this repairable or should I part the plane out? It has a lot going for it this plane with only 1900ttsn.
Click to expand...
You purchased it and then had the bad landing or purchased it with the intent to fix or part out? If the former it seems the decision is the insurance company’s.

Anything is fixable. This is a Continental powered 172, so less valuable or so have been told. A specialized shop can fix this in a reasonable amount of time after a waiting period for its turn to come up. That could be quite a while unfortunately.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Nope. Not even close. I worked on many flight training 172s, including some from the 1960s, and never encountered a rebuilt one. This is a myth similar to the old "all 180s and 185s have been groundlooped at some time." That isn't true, either.

That damage is very expensive to repair. The OP mentions this:


The damage is to the firewall, the skin on the left forward fuselage, the floor, the structure under the floor, and the tunnel structure that supports that nosegear. That tunnel extends aft and has the fuel selector, trim wheel and other stuff in it. Expensive.
Click to expand...
I know of 3 that have been repaired.
 
Pinecone said:
I know of 3 that have been repaired.
Click to expand...
And another 3 here. It does happen, is expensive, and sometimes it's worth fixing.

Many , but maybe not 50% to qualify as "most" taildraggers have been ground looped at some point. However, the damage will vary from minimal to ripping out the gearbox depending on model and state of energy when ground loop occurred. 180s and 185s, particularly with after c.g (i.e. not two-up) can be a bit twitchy.

Others than haven't been ground looped may have been on their back.
 
Pinecone said:
I know of 3 that have been repaired.
Click to expand...

Steamflyer said:
And another 3 here. It does happen, is expensive, and sometimes it's worth fixing.
Click to expand...

But six airplanes hardly qualifies as this:
Pinecone said:
Probably most of the C-172s that were used in training have had this repair done.
Click to expand...

There were more that 44,000 172s built. Many of those have been or are used in flight training. The schools that do the training right don't get their firewalls torn up, and the ones that are too casual about training standards eventually pay for their negligence. Their insurance costs rise and eventually they're out of business. It tends to be self-correcting.

Busted nosegears and structure are normally due to flat landings, with the nosewheel contacting first, starting a porpoise that ends up with the nose hitting harder each time until something finally breaks. Flat landings are, by definition, fast landings, and that is due to two factors: (1) A lack of understanding of the relationship between airspeed and angle of attack, and (2) instructors who let the student get away with it. The stuff first learned is hard to unlearn, and if you let the student touch down at higher airspeeds, you are a poor instructor. Maybe you don't understand the airspeed/AoA thing either. The textbooks are full of the physics behind this, but who reads anymore?

1714498503682.png

It's not just 172s that get it:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top