Flying a Bonanza

Beech isn't the only one that's exorbitant. I got a recent quote from
Piper for $200 each for a pair of gas caps for my Arrow.

I've always wanted a Bo but am getting concerned now about structural
issues - an AD for tail strengthening on older models, and more
recently an issue about cracks in the wing spar web.

On 9 Sep 2005 06:13:28 -0700, "Paul kgyy" wrote
in .com::

Beech isn't the only one that's exorbitant. I got a recent quote from
Piper for $200 each for a pair of gas caps for my Arrow.

I would hope Cessna's charging 100 times the market rate for similar
items is a result of an attempt to included the cost of liability
exposure in the price, and not monopolistic profiteering.

I've always wanted a Bo but am getting concerned now about structural
issues

I too am considering a Bonanza. It's cost of operation per-seat-mile
seems superior to anything else in its class, but a 40-50 year old
aircraft does make one think about its structural integrity.

- an AD for tail strengthening on older models,

That Airworthiness Directive was a result of a number of in-flight
failures attributed to flutter wasn't it? It was a necessary design
change to deal with an unanticipated problem inherent in the original
design, IIRC.

and more recently an issue about cracks in the wing spar web.

That is probably the biggest concern, but there are methods of
detecting problems there aren't there? Isn't there a retrofit kit
available also?

That Airworthiness Directive was a result of a number of in-flight
failures attributed to flutter wasn't it? It was a necessary design
change to deal with an unanticipated problem inherent in the original
design, IIRC.

Not flutter, over stressed by exceeding design speeds.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:19:07 GMT, john smith wrote in
::

That Airworthiness Directive was a result of a number of in-flight
failures attributed to flutter wasn't it? It was a necessary design
change to deal with an unanticipated problem inherent in the original
design, IIRC.

Not flutter, over stressed by exceeding design speeds.

Right. That makes sense.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:33:40 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On 9 Sep 2005 06:13:28 -0700, "Paul kgyy" wrote
in .com::

Beech isn't the only one that's exorbitant. I got a recent quote from
Piper for $200 each for a pair of gas caps for my Arrow.

I would hope Cessna's charging 100 times the market rate for similar
items is a result of an attempt to included the cost of liability
exposure in the price, and not monopolistic profiteering.

I've always wanted a Bo but am getting concerned now about structural
issues

I too am considering a Bonanza. It's cost of operation per-seat-mile
seems superior to anything else in its class, but a 40-50 year old
aircraft does make one think about its structural integrity.

- an AD for tail strengthening on older models,

That Airworthiness Directive was a result of a number of in-flight
failures attributed to flutter wasn't it? It was a necessary design
change to deal with an unanticipated problem inherent in the original
design, IIRC.

and more recently an issue about cracks in the wing spar web.

That is probably the biggest concern, but there are methods of
detecting problems there aren't there? Isn't there a retrofit kit
available also?

It's a visual inspection and can be fixed by stop drilling and
doublers. The current question is whether that is good enough or not.
It's thought the cracks come from taxiing on rough surfaces rather
than in flight, but who knows.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com