Is wing spar corrosion a deal breaker

SixPapaCharlie

SixPapaCharlie

May the force be with you
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
16,415
Display Name
Display name:
Sixer
I spoke to someone today that has a beechcraft.
I mentioned walking away from a plane because it had corrosion that was treated but not addressed in any logs.

He said his main spar had corrosion but was repaired per beech specs, and then treated.

Would that not give you the heebee geebees flying around on a spar that had been corroded?
Maybe it is not as big a deal as I am thinking it is. Seems this is the one part of the plane that you would want to be more perfect than any other part.
 
There are spar ADs on a number of different airplanes out there. Corrosion, cracking. Sign of the times in an aging fleet. If the inspections and any repair or modification (e.g. spar strap) were done and documented properly shouldn't be a source of concern. This is much like the rudavator failures in V-tails years ago. Not a reason to stop flying them once the AD has been attended to.
 
There is corrosion, then there is corrosion.
For eg, there is hardly a Cessna out there with zero corrosion on the inside of the airframe these days. But, it is mostly light corrosion; surface corrosion, or mild oxidization of the alclad. Then, there are more damaging (and occasionally dangerous) instances of corrosion on airplanes. See ch6 of AC43.13-1B

PS, it's time we stopped discussing any aircraft defect as a "deal-breaker". What is intolerable to one buyer is not, to another. It cannot be used to label an airplane for all buyers. Even if one wing on an airplane has been mangled and then burned to a crisp to within an inch of the butt rib....I am going to buy it, then find a new wing and fly that airplane. Yes, I will probably get a discount for buying such an airplane...but I am going to buy it - there is no "dealbreaker".
 
Where was this corrosion? Wing attach fittings found during removal the wing bolts? No signoffs? No way.

I've had them bolts out before and found washer impressions on the fittings that turned into PITA, taking dental impressions and shipping them to Beech then fixing the fittings, then measuring, then waiting and waiting... It sucked.

I am not a Beech expert but have done those before. Helped whack wing bolts out of a Beechjet too, also sucked. Bolts fall out of the Bonanzas tho.
 
I'm a total novice on maintenance stuff and deal breakers.... but....
It seems to me, a reasonable common sense guy, that corrosion is just fine as long as it's fixed and DOCUMENTED.
It seems to me something is hidden or not fixed correctly if it's not signed off in the log book.
Plus, if that's not documented, what else is there thats not on the books??
But, what do I know..??
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
There is corrosion, then there is corrosion.
For eg, there is hardly a Cessna out there with zero corrosion on the inside of the airframe these days. But, it is mostly light corrosion; surface corrosion, or mild oxidization of the alclad. Then, there are more damaging (and occasionally dangerous) instances of corrosion on airplanes. See ch6 of AC43.13-1B

PS, it's time we stopped discussing any aircraft defect as a "deal-breaker". What is intolerable to one buyer is not, to another. It cannot be used to label an airplane for all buyers. Even if one wing on an airplane has been mangled and then burned to a crisp to within an inch of the butt rib....I am going to buy it, then find a new wing and fly that airplane. Yes, I will probably get a discount for buying such an airplane...but I am going to buy it - there is no "dealbreaker".
Click to expand...
Yay Dave. I like that attitude.
 
I don't know anything about Beech airplanes specifically, but when I bought my Cardinal it apparently had localized but deep, unserviceable corrosion of the wing spar carrythrough due to mouse pee. Although I hired a mechanic to do a pre-buy inspection and instructed him to look specifically at the spar carrythrough since corrosion there is quite common in Cardinals, he failed to find it (and admitted later to not doing the kind of inspection that would have found it). The condition was discovered at my first annual. :( If insurance hadn't paid for it, this would have cost me about 10 AMUs when all was said and done (about 1.5, after insurance). So yes, this would have been a dealbreaker for me if it had been discovered during the pre-buy since I had no way of knowing that my insurance would pay for it.

I agree with other posters that whether corrosion is a dealbreaker is an individual decision and that one can't generalize. If the seller had known about the problem and was willing to replace the item himself or discount the selling price, it would have been different even in my case. And btw, that meant replacing the carrythrough, so certainly no heebie-jeebies about flying the plane after repairs. Even if the repair hadn't required replacement, as long as the repair was done by the book and the part could be serviced back to within spec, that would not have turned me away from buying the plane.
 
Spar corrosion is a deal breaker for me, always. That sounds simple, because it is.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
There is corrosion, then there is corrosion.
For eg, there is hardly a Cessna out there with zero corrosion on the inside of the airframe these days. But, it is mostly light corrosion; surface corrosion, or mild oxidization of the alclad. Then, there are more damaging (and occasionally dangerous) instances of corrosion on airplanes. See ch6 of AC43.13-1B
Click to expand...
This. A lot depends on what the particular person's definition of corrosion is and how it was addressed.

You can have a case with light surface corrosion that was never properly addressed or you could have had a case with significant corrosion, but that section was completely replaced and now is merely anecdotal.

Not all reports of corrosion are things to run away from. Just need thorough investigation so you know what you're getting into.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
PS, it's time we stopped discussing any aircraft defect as a "deal-breaker". What is intolerable to one buyer is not, to another. It cannot be used to label an airplane for all buyers. Even if one wing on an airplane has been mangled and then burned to a crisp to within an inch of the butt rib....I am going to buy it, then find a new wing and fly that airplane. Yes, I will probably get a discount for buying such an airplane...but I am going to buy it - there is no "dealbreaker".
Click to expand...

This quote is so full of fail it's staggering. You either have a hunk of crap for sale now or work for a shop that fixes hunks of crap.

Greg may be impressed at your tolerance, but I can see through that smoke screen quite clearly. What you are advocating is financial suicide for 95% of potential owners. There 100% without a doubt deal breakers. There are different levels where that bar is placed for each owner, but ever single plane has a condition point where buyers will walk away.

That 5% would most likely be someone in the rebuild/refurbished mode who,has th cash, time and experience. And the plane will be one of importance, such as a real cub, desirable or historic airframe or carries significant emotional ties to the rebuilder.

In th case of 6PC, he wants a decent, trouble free, ready to fly plane. Not a project.
 
Keep in mind that with Barons/Bonanzas, Beech didn't start applying corrosion protection to the airframes at the factory until the mid-late 70s. It is possible that someone found the beginnings of light surface corrosion on the airplane and it was properly addressed with no loss to integrity.

In other words, it may or may not be worth digging deeper depending on other aspects you uncover about the plane.
 
I agree that the type of corrosion is the decision maker. Surface oxidation is considered corrosion and can be addressed by a simple cleaning and surface sealer. Then there is the type that has removed and pitted material. On non structural items this may be ok, wing spar not so much. Then there is the type that was severe enough to warrant part replacement. The only one of these that would be a true deal breaker for me is corrosion to the point where it has left pitting in a structural component that wasn't replaced. The rest would be acceptable of an old airplane but would warrant a thorough and independent inspection. If the area in questions isn't easily accessed for a full inspection the amount of work required to do the inspection can exceed what makes that airplane worth over another one. In short, don't walk away but don't dismiss without someone else opinion.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I spoke to someone today that has a beechcraft.
I mentioned walking away from a plane because it had corrosion that was treated but not addressed in any logs.

He said his main spar had corrosion but was repaired per beech specs, and then treated.

Would that not give you the heebee geebees flying around on a spar that had been corroded?
Maybe it is not as big a deal as I am thinking it is. Seems this is the one part of the plane that you would want to be more perfect than any other part.
Click to expand...

You might want to take that question to the Beech specific forum. But if the Spar Web AD has been done and the wing bolts replaced, that's an expensive proposition. If done properly, I wouldn't worry about it, probably stronger than new.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
...Even if one wing on an airplane has been mangled and then burned to a crisp to within an inch of the butt rib...
Click to expand...

How can you tell Letsgoflying! owns a plane with (non-corroding) combustible wings...:yikes: :)
 
Last edited:
It really depends on the specifics of the corrosion in my opinion. If all it is is a bit of surface corrosion that's within the prescribed limits, I wouldn't worry about it. Where I get worried is when you get enough that the limits do require a full replacement. I've seen wing spar mounts removed from Twin Cessnas that flew in that were so corroded you could put your finger through. Obviously that is really, really bad. But on the other side of it, that plane flew in. So, I don't worry about a little surface corrosion. So long as it was treated, it's not necessarily going to get worse. It probably will just be fine, especially in Texas.

I would talk to some folks who knows these airplanes well.
 
Unit74 said:
...In th case of 6PC, he wants a decent, trouble free, ready to fly plane. Not a project.
Click to expand...

I read 6PC's post in the context of an airplane that had already been repaired, not a project. Given the age of the overall metal airplane fleet, if one starts eliminating properly repaired aircraft from consideration, and believes there is such a thing as "corrosion free", you will very quickly restrict yourself to a plastic Cirrus or a recently completed homebuilt.

Even your Lance is likely to have corrosion where the dissimilar metals of the steel wing attach fittings contact the aluminum spar.
 
To be fair, the one I walked away form had wet touch-up paint on it, Panel scratches refinished in sharpie, and the corrosion treatment was nowhere in the logs.

My buddy said his was repaired per beech specifications and detailed in his books.
He had portions that had to be cut out and re-welded. I guess its ok. He has been flying it for 10 years but still gives me pause.
I guess my own ignorance would keep me from flying something like that.
 
Cut out and re-welded does sound bad, but again it depends on the specific details. I think you need to talk to a Beech expert.
 
GRG55 said:
Even your Lance is likely to have corrosion where the dissimilar metals of the steel wing attach fittings contact the aluminum spar.
Click to expand...

I don't see how this has to do with LGFs bold claims? Is it a redirect on course to derail my post or....?
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
To be fair, the one I walked away form had wet touch-up paint on it, Panel scratches refinished in sharpie, and the corrosion treatment was nowhere in the logs.

My buddy said his was repaired per beech specifications and detailed in his books.
He had portions that had to be cut out and re-welded. I guess its ok. He has been flying it for 10 years but still gives me pause.
I guess my own ignorance would keep me from flying something like that.
Click to expand...

You can bet if you discovered undocumented repairs, it's not the only one.
 
Cessna wrote SID instructions for inspecting our old Cessna airframes. Corrosion and fatigue are what they address. Very few Cessnas have been inspected to SID standards. It seems owners would rather not know.
 
azure said:
...
The condition was discovered at my first annual. :( If insurance hadn't paid for it, this would have cost me about 10 AMUs when all was said and done (about 1.5, after insurance). So yes, this would have been a dealbreaker for me if it had been discovered during the pre-buy since I had no way of knowing that my insurance would pay for it.
...
Click to expand...

Your insurance paid for corrosion repair? I'm not an owner yet so I don't have any experience, but I'm surprised corrosion was considered a covered loss.
 
Unit74 said:
I don't see how this has to do with LGFs bold claims? Is it a redirect on course to derail my post or....?
Click to expand...

My post was anchored to the OP. Your extraction of only the last sentence, thus conveniently eliminating that context, is completely in character.
 
Stewartb said:
Cessna wrote SID instructions for inspecting our old Cessna airframes. Corrosion and fatigue are what they address. Very few Cessnas have been inspected to SID standards. It seems owners would rather not know.
Click to expand...

Some Twin Cessnas (402C, 414A, 401) have ADs out that require the SIDs. However, Cessna made these inspections for the entire fleet mostly to try to get them out of the sky. Australia has made it mandatory as I understand, at significant expense. I haven't seen indications that these extra inspections are warranted on other airplanes.
 
Cessna understands that nothing lasts forever.

Every plane is a project. If the standard or aircraft inspection is superficial the discovery of problems will be deferred. Visible corrosion on a spar might warrant a thorough inspection of harder to see areas. Deal breaker? Not enough information. No two airplanes will be exactly the same.
 
I like it when the jumpy-mice buyers reject the imperfect airplanes because they are unwilling or unable to truly properly investigate potential defects.

More great deals for buyers who are able to fix as needed, and fly fly fly!
 
In all my years of repairing stuff like the OP is referring to I consider two things.

Is the part replaceable ? If it is not, walk. I don't know of a single beech model that's worth a spar replacement.

Is the cost to buy, and the cost to repair, together under the fair market price of the aircraft. If not why buy? there are good aircraft out there just keep looking.
 
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying! said:
I like it when the jumpy-mice buyers reject the imperfect airplanes because they are unwilling or unable to truly properly investigate potential defects.

More great deals for buyers who are able to fix as needed, and fly fly fly!
Click to expand...
There are certain things that are repairable and there things that aren't, The smart buyer has done their home work and knows the difference.
Most aircraft on the market simply aren't worth the cost of a major repair, like a spar replacement.
Change the whole wing maybe..?
 
GRG55 said:
My post was anchored to the OP. Your extraction of only the last sentence, thus conveniently eliminating that context, is completely in character.
Click to expand...


Nice try. Here, let me give you a nickel to throw in that wishing well.

It's 100% in context and total Bullhickey, and you know it.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I like it when the jumpy-mice buyers reject the imperfect airplanes because they are unwilling or unable to truly properly investigate potential defects.

More great deals for buyers who are able to fix as needed, and fly fly fly!
Click to expand...

Agreed. All of the planes I've bought or managed have been acquired at very good prices because of some imperfections that scared away other buyers. Some great deals have been had over the past 8+ years that way (hard to believe I bought the Aztec over 8 years ago now).
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Agreed. All of the planes I've bought or managed have been acquired at very good prices because of some imperfections that scared away other buyers. Some great deals have been had over the past 8+ years that way (hard to believe I bought the Aztec over 8 years ago now).
Click to expand...


Very true. My Lance had about $10k in squawks which ended up being $15k on final price less. But this thread was about corrosion and LGFs plane burned to the ground but was put back together, which is a show stopper for just about everyone.

Every plane will have squawks. Every buyer has a walk away threshold. Run out engines to an AP are a diamond that needs some polishing. A run out engine to an average buyer us a show stopper.
 
Unit74 said:
Very true. My Lance had about $10k in squawks which ended up being $15k on final price less. But this thread was about corrosion and LGFs plane burned to the ground but was put back together, which is a show stopper for just about everyone.

Every plane will have squawks. Every buyer has a walk away threshold. Run out engines to an AP are a diamond that needs some polishing. A run out engine to an average buyer us a show stopper.
Click to expand...

Yes, agreed.

About 2-3 years ago when I was perusing Controller for potential good deals on upgrade planes (this was when we weren't serious about it, but were starting to think) I found a 414 that looked like it might be a good buy. Stock 414 from Idaho or somewhere around there. Earlier model, looked clean, needed some work. Out of annual for quite a while, over a decade. Had enough things that would minimize the desirable market. So I figured I'd give the broker a call to find out some more info thinking we might be able to get a really good deal that would need some work.

Broker: "Well, the plane's been out of annual for 25 years."
Me: "Alright, so it hasn't flown in 25 years."
Broker: "Oh no, it's been flying in that time and flies great."
Me: "Ok... was it purchased and just ferried recently?"
Broker: "No, the owner puts about 50-100 hours a year on it."
Me: "So he just flies it out of annual. Who does the work on it?"
Broker: "He does. He's a very meticulous individual."
Me: "But he's not an A&P?"
Broker: "No."
Me: "So, that means that no ADs on the plane have been complied with during the past 25 years."
Broker: "Correct."

I chatted with the broker a bit more, who really was a very nice individual. The owner was someone who just had no use for the FAA or regulations. I ended up telling the broker that if the plane was donated outright, that we would take it, but that would be the only condition under which we would acquire the aircraft. And even then I wasn't sure if we'd want to fix it or just sell it straight to a scrap yard - I was thinking the latter. The seller was trying to raise money for another project of his. No idea who bought the plane eventually, I would think the scrap yard was the only home for it.

The 414 we later picked up (a 77 model that was out of annual, hadn't flown in 6 years, etc.) ended up being a much, much better option. I'm glad we waited.
 
If I can get the house paid off, I think a cabin class twin might me in my long term future.
 
Unit74 said:
If I can get the house paid off, I think a cabin class twin might me in my long term future.
Click to expand...

You can sleep in your plane, but you can't fly your house. ;)

Let me know when you think you might head that direction. Got time in all the major ones.
 
ColoPilot said:
Your insurance paid for corrosion repair? I'm not an owner yet so I don't have any experience, but I'm surprised corrosion was considered a covered loss.
Click to expand...
Corrosion due to exposure to the elements probably wouldn't have been, but as this was due to a mouse infestation, it was apparently considered on a par with an accident -- though I'm still not sure of the exact reasoning as I didn't ask too many questions. (Believe me, I was surprised too when my insurance said yes, but I wasn't about to look that gift horse in the mouth! ;))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top