Arrow annual woes

wrote:
Our 1979 Arrow IV is in the shop for its annual inspection. As usual, the
inspection itself went smoothly, but it uncovered some maintenance items
that will run into several AMUs.

Wait till SBs become mandatory by regulation .. which is in the works.
It's going to cost $1000 plus per hour to operate these old planes. And
the value of them is going straight in the toilet.

There is always a Van's RV...

denny



Wait till SBs become mandatory by regulation .. which is in the works.
It's going to cost $1000 plus per hour to operate these old planes. And
the value of them is going straight in the toilet.

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 03:29:58 GMT,
wrote:


On 14-Jun-2006, john smith wrote:

Is the Arrow wing one piece (like a Mooney) or two (like an RV)?


On PA-28 airplanes, including the Arrow, the wing spar sections bolt onto
the fuselage carry-through section. Apparently, removing a wing is not that
big a deal. I presume there must be a hard point under the fuselage where
the weight of the plane can be supported while the wing is removed, since
the main gear mount on the wing, or else it might be necessary to use slings
from an overhead.

-Elliott Drucker

we built a wooden cradle/cart that supported the fuselage skin at the
beefy sections where it was secured to fuselage formers/other major
structure. had one for PA28's and another for PA32's.

jacked up the whole ship and rolled the cradle under it, lowered it
gently onto the cradle. used wing jacks to support the wings, had to
leave one under the heavy side if you were only removing one.

it's not a huge deal, but getting the wing bolts out/in can suck at
times.

cradles were used to hold the interiors yanked out of the other birds
when they were doing freight duty.

luckily, they spent more time with seats on 'em than fuselages...

TC

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:43:01 -0500, Otis Winslow
wrote:

wrote:

snip

Wait till SBs become mandatory by regulation .. which is in the works.

snip

this is just plain incorrect.

just read today that AOPA (or some other alphabet) is climbing onto
the soapbox to fight this non-issue.

one more time-the recent ruling states that if you are overhauling
an engine in accordance with an approved overhaul manual that
explicitly states that service bulletins are mandatory, you must
comply with the service bulletins.

nothing new, just the first ruling to that effect.

there is a world of difference between this ruling and the blanket
statement that all manufacturer SB's will "become mandatory" by
regulation.

TC

I think you're dead on TC, and many people have missed this when reading the
ruling. In that particular case it was the overhaul manual that made the
SB's mandatory. There was literally no way to comply with the accepted
overhaul manual without complying with the SB's. The SB's became PART of
the overhaul manual. In all practical purposes "updates" to the manual.

Jim
(waking up each morning to the sounds of PT-6's and R-1340's... summer is
officially here)

Actually, You're Both incorrect... The only way a manufacturers SB
becomes MANDATORY for a part 91operator is thru an AD note or if it is
referenced in the TCDS. Just because Lycoming puts that statement in
the manual does not make it mandatory....
Joe


Jim Burns wrote:
I think you're dead on TC, and many people have missed this when reading the
ruling. In that particular case it was the overhaul manual that made the
SB's mandatory. There was literally no way to comply with the accepted
overhaul manual without complying with the SB's. The SB's became PART of
the overhaul manual. In all practical purposes "updates" to the manual.

Jim
(waking up each morning to the sounds of PT-6's and R-1340's... summer is
officially here)

On 15-Jun-2006, Otis Winslow wrote:

Wait till SBs become mandatory by regulation .. which is in the works.
It's going to cost $1000 plus per hour to operate these old planes. And
the value of them is going straight in the toilet.


Some SBs become mandatory because of a subsequently issued AD, but by
themselves they are, from a legal standpoint, voluntary. That said, my
feeling is that SBs generally address serious issues that soul be dealt with
by careful pilots/owners.

In the 10 years I have co-owned our Arrow IV, the various Piper- and
Lycoming-issued SBs affecting our plane have had quite modest cost
implications. Unfortunately, the SB dealing with cracked wing ribs caught
us -- not because of the cost of the inspection, which took about 2 hours of
A&P labor (if done at the time of an annual), but because it revealed some
cracks. The cracks make the airplane un-airworthy, SB or no SB. So in
effect, the big cost is not in complying with the SB, but rather in
repairing the damage that performing the SB uncovered.

Yes, older airplanes generally have more maintenance issues. Things wear
out. But properly maintained, their values generally, on average, have more
than kept pace with inflation. Consider, for example, Bonanzas from the
'70s and '80s. They require lots of expensive maintenance but their values
keep climbing, or at least hold firm, year after year.

-Elliott Drucker

wrote:

1) The inspection part of Piper Service Bulletin 1161 resulted in
identification of cracks in both affected wing ribs. That's the bad news.
The good news is that the cracks are in locations that will allow the use of
the Piper repair kits, which Piper stocks. Jack Allison has posted on this
NG his horror story of replacing the ribs when the cracks precluded use of
the repair kits,

Misery does love company. Maybe when it's all said and done, our final
costs will be pretty close. I hope yours is less though. Glad you
could go the SB route vs. rib replacement. 1.3 AMUs is much better than
just north of 5 AMUs.

Sure can't complain about that kind of service life on the hydraulic
power pack...and for less than an AMU. That's just $29.63/year. Such a
deal. :-)


3) The biggie!

Ouch! I hate it when there's a biggie found at annual time (and I've
only been through one).

never done this job before but one of the assistant A&Ps has, and the
estimate is largely based upon his knowledge. Have any of you other
PA-28/PA-32 owners had this problem?

As JayH said, check into CPA. I've read a few things about the repairs
but don't recall costs involved.


Glad this is going to be split 3 ways!

Yes! That divide by three things sure does help make it easier to
swallow, eh?


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-Instrument Airplane
Arrow N2104T

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

Then I would argue that the term "overhaul" could not be used to describe or
certify the work done on the engine, no matter if part 91 or part 135. The
mechanic certified that the engine had been overhauled according to the
approved overhaul manual. "Overhaul" requires specific compliance with the
approved overhaul manual, if that manual states that in addition to the
current manual, all SBs be complied with, any other action would negate the
official definition of "overhaul". This is not saying that the engine could
have been legally repaired, rebuilt, fixed, or use any other word you want,
but it was not overhauled as the mechanic had certified.
Jim


"joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
Actually, You're Both incorrect... The only way a manufacturers SB
becomes MANDATORY for a part 91operator is thru an AD note or if it is
referenced in the TCDS. Just because Lycoming puts that statement in
the manual does not make it mandatory....
Joe


Jim Burns wrote:
I think you're dead on TC, and many people have missed this when reading
the
ruling. In that particular case it was the overhaul manual that made
the
SB's mandatory. There was literally no way to comply with the accepted
overhaul manual without complying with the SB's. The SB's became PART
of
the overhaul manual. In all practical purposes "updates" to the manual.

Jim
(waking up each morning to the sounds of PT-6's and R-1340's... summer
is
officially here)

"Some SBs become mandatory because of a subsequently issued AD, "...

Tell me about it. Years ago, there was a service bulletin on the Seneca for
the landing gear trunions. Some operators were reporting cracks. The S.B.
beacame an A.D. I had just over 2000 hours on the trunions, and they had to
be replaced. (They had already been magnafluxed several times, with no
cracks found).
$5000 spent fixing that one.
wrote in message
news:tcnkg.9854$db5.4007@trnddc03...

On 15-Jun-2006, Otis Winslow wrote:

Wait till SBs become mandatory by regulation .. which is in the works.
It's going to cost $1000 plus per hour to operate these old planes. And
the value of them is going straight in the toilet.


Some SBs become mandatory because of a subsequently issued AD, but by
themselves they are, from a legal standpoint, voluntary. That said, my
feeling is that SBs generally address serious issues that soul be dealt
with
by careful pilots/owners.

In the 10 years I have co-owned our Arrow IV, the various Piper- and
Lycoming-issued SBs affecting our plane have had quite modest cost
implications. Unfortunately, the SB dealing with cracked wing ribs caught
us -- not because of the cost of the inspection, which took about 2 hours
of
A&P labor (if done at the time of an annual), but because it revealed some
cracks. The cracks make the airplane un-airworthy, SB or no SB. So in
effect, the big cost is not in complying with the SB, but rather in
repairing the damage that performing the SB uncovered.

Yes, older airplanes generally have more maintenance issues. Things wear
out. But properly maintained, their values generally, on average, have
more
than kept pace with inflation. Consider, for example, Bonanzas from the
'70s and '80s. They require lots of expensive maintenance but their
values
keep climbing, or at least hold firm, year after year.

-Elliott Drucker