Date 1 - 3 of 3
Old Timers and repair options
|1 - 3 of 3|
I stand by my last e-mail and will have no further comment on this
issue with you. Its a matter of record. I published what happened to me
simply for the benefit of the group and to encourage others to take a
Although this forum sometimes gets heated, things are learned and
hopefully safety is advanced.
What we've done with this conversation is brought a potentially serious
issue to the forefront. People will have decide which course of action
to take. In the meantime a few people are persuing Non Destructive
Testing posibilities which could be good for all of us.
Regards and good luck to you,
Jim Patillo N46JP Q200
Phil Lankford (with a K) agrees.
let me put aside your bullying and address the issues you raise.
I too believe there may be a problem but with a lot more empericalLS1s'are
living in the environment, you are viewing it from a distance.Agreed! So what? I do not have to face the possibility that my
aircraft may be unsafe, and that it may be expensive to fix, or that
I may have been operating it in a manner which endangered my pax. I
have no face saving implications colouring my comments, Jim.
make the coment "at least half of your spar "is sound so far", you
That is is the issue Jim, WE do not know for sure, either way. You
have repaired one side with a repair that we discussed (perhaps you
have forgotten your phone call to me discussing the way forward?) A
repair scheme that I endorsed after I sought expert advice upon it
on your behalf (perhaps you have forgotten?) so there is a
reasonable degree of confidence that the repaired side is fine. My
question is this : what about the other side? What if it has a
latent flaw which is progressing at a slower rate because it is
located in a slightly less vulnerable orientation?
In retrospect I should have recommended you repair the other side at
the same time.
The airframe never saw loads above those published during thoseCG
and otherwise during the flight test phases. It's never had a hardIn a way this is even more disturbing, if it failed after only
seeing moderate loads - but that is typical of fatigue failures or
progressing defects - nothing, nothing, nothing, failure. Right up
to the last nothing, all indications are that the airframe is sound
unless someone looks in the right place for the right thing.
Since that time several
of us have flown regulary with higher gross weights. Bob Farnam,Bob
Malechek, Phil Lankford with a "K", myself and others.Hmmm, how many nothings have been used up then, do you think? Maybe
there is no flaw in their airframe? But what if they have the same
flaw as you had but have yet to discover it? What would responsible
advice be to such owners? Mine is this - sit it on the ground until
you know for sure what you have. At the very least stick to the
If you cannot answer the question "how much margin did the designer
build into this design?" There is no logical or safe basis for
exceeding the limits.
more of those airframes failed?See above.
I suspect the reason you haven't heard from any "old timers" isthey
have been paying attention and checking their spars and don't eveninvolved"
directly.Maybe, and more power to them if they are. If this discussion
serves only to prompt that action we have advanced the cause of Q-
200 flight safety.
Isn't it interesting you are now raising and making a big
deal out of these concerns two years after I made them public.The game has changed Jim. This is not primarily about your airframe.
It can no longer be dismissed as an isolated incident. you are
right, It is interesting and very serious. No amount of bravado
will change that.
were you then when Bob Farnam and I came up with the fix for theyou have a conveniently short memory Jim.
were you when I wrote the article to alert others to the possibleI suspect that I was on the sidelines happy that your event and the
fix was being documented in some manner.
What has prompted you to come out on this subject again??Come on Jim, James Postma's report means this is a possible fleet
easy and I don't mean static loading it til you really dooverstress
Jim, as I have taken some time to explain, the problem is not simple
to assess in a manner which picks up all the defect options and
without requiring a significant repair effort. Why are you afraid of
static loading Jim? Is it because it may yield a result no one wants?
Based upon the assumption that James spar has failed in the same
place and due to the same mechanism as yours...
Right now for uninstalled spars I suggest four things, inspect
carefully. Reinforce the area with an equivalent strength doubler,
replace them with know good spars or install them assuming a defect
and extend the central splice beyond the site of the defect.
For installed spars I have provided the inspection options in a
previous post. If a defect is found : two options, repair and the
simplest is to simply extend the center splice doublers at full
strength beyond BL 12 left and right and then taper as per plans.
Less simply, you could excavate down to the carbon, apply a carbon
uni doubler and then repair the splice at 1" per layer. This is not
trivial because nobody knows for sure what materials have been used
or what the exact layup schedule is. A burn test is unhelpful.
For installed spars with no defect found, there is not enough
information yet to give informed advice.
identicalairframes which has been subsequently repaired. At least half ofyourcanard spar is sound - so far! Here is the question you shouldask,then answer, Jim.
isfailure to yours but had yet to detect it?"
anitissue of uncertainty but that is the nature of the beast.
isasdeafening)could be due to:
fleets.flight critical safety issues which would ground civilian
qualify(anyone want to put bet with their life?)
beaxisthat their flaws are located in an area closer to the neutral
beyours,that the failure mechanism in James's airframe differs from
mean?500hours on the LS1 spar clock have spoken up. What does this
|1 - 3 of 3|