For an extra 100 dollars from the factory and an additional 20 pounds of aluminum, that spar could have been made 3 times stronger and never failed under any conditions. Cessna probably saved 50 dollars or so though during production, I guess they never dreamed those planes would fly 5 decades or more. And if they gave so little thought to the carry through spar, what's going to start snapping off next? Manufacturers should calculate how strong the wing spar needs to be, then double it for production like they did with the DC3. Nothing more unsettling than flying around in an old plane and hoping you don't hit turbulence because maybe the wing will snap off.
As part of its backgrounding process, the FAA received reports of “widespread and severe corrosion of the carry-thru spar” on Cessna 210G through 210M models, including the T210 variants. “Further investigation identified that these early model airplanes were manufactured without corrosion protection or primer, increasing their susceptibility to corrosion. Additionally, the design of these early model airplanes, where the upper surface of the spar is exposed to the environment, allows a pathway for moisture intrusion. Model 210-series airplanes were also delivered with foam installed along the carry-thru spar lower cap. The foam traps moisture against the lower surface of the carry-thru spar cap, which can increase the development of corrosion,” according to the AD.
Retired aircraft structural engineer here. If this is just a web problem and the upper and lower flanges have not lost significant material and are not pitted, it seems like this could be repaired. In I-beams the upper and lower flanges take most of the bending loads and the web takes nearly all of the shear loads. For positive loads, the top flange is in compression and the lower flange is in tension. Shear loads from the outboard wing are reacted into the side structure before they reach the center of the cabin, so the I-beam in this area sees virtually no shear load and is in pure bending. In pure bending, the web material has nothing to do other than to locate and stiffen the upper and lower flanges. If this were a manufacturing defect at the military AC factory I used to work at we would have smoothed the damaged web material and reinforced it with two donut shaped doubler plates or patches, one on each side of the web. If you look at a Cherokee wing spar it is completely built up of layers of plates, angels, and T sections all riveted together. This Cessna carry through could likely be reinforced in this fashion rather than replaced. Of course, you would have to get a field STC for the repair, but for $60,000, that might be possible.
I was thinking the same thing. Why fail it for a little corrosion on the web? This wouldn't effect the strength of overall structure, as long as the top and especially the bottom chords are solid.
Someone once told me the cheapest part of aircraft ownership was the day it was purchased. I remember the day our A & P said we needed a new carburetor for our C-150. $750 for a used carb. And that almost brought tears. But this…ouch!
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Good thread of comments on this wing spar...and the cottage industry that General Aviation is. Mark--you have become one of the spokesmen for the private aircraft owner.
Thanks, Mark! I really appreciate your informative videos on the AD requirements for 210 & 177 wing spar inspections… and the AD requirements for 172 & 182 wing strut inspections! Both can be very expensive repairs… and should be considered before buying these aircraft! Fortunately, 177 aircraft flown in TYPICAL usage do not need the AD inspection until 15,000 flight hours if wing STC modifications have NOT been made…
Mark, those depressions are called blend-outs of corrosion that you pointed out on the condemned one close to the lightening hole. So someone has blended the corrosion out and the depth of the blend-out is beyone the manufacturers limits. Is the material of the replacement one the same material as the condemned one-? If it is so, then the only difference is the primer coat protecting the replacement one. For that ridiculous price I would want that forging to be made from titanium material.
Well, its 3 years on and at least for Cardinals, the whole thing, parts and labor is in the $30K range. Hardly chump change but at least worth repairing (mine passed with no problems) I don’t know about the 210's but I do know that Cessna is now making replacement spars for the Centurion. The vast Majority of Cardinals are fortunately having no issues.
Thanks! There was a long learning curve on microphones, and STILL we catch wind from time to time. But, it is much better and we thank you for the compliment. - Don the camera guy.
Note that the old spar is not zinc chromated and the new one is. Shame Cessna didn’t zinc chromate them from the factory, which is one reason why I like Skywagons with float kits. That green shade is a comfort when inspecting my airplane.
Manny, To be honest, I think that they were corrosion-proofed when new but they have to be stripped and cleaned of all paint and glue etc to be able to see the surface. Ironically the corrosion on the lower surface is caused by the glue that hold the padding and headliner and the steel in the vent tubes up there in damp environments. Anything corrosion proofed is better though.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 It’s my understanding that the AD allows the inspection of the spar to be done in place. That removed spar has no evidence of zinc chromate, although, it may have been alodined. The new one is fully zinc chromated. The operating environment is the primary contributor to corrosion on the spar, according to what I have read. I know a guy who got “a really good deal” on a 210. I hope it really was.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 210s equipped with air conditioning would be especially vulnerable to condensation as the lines run through the cabin roof through the spar
Yes, That is correct. The inspection is done with the spar carry-through in place. If it passes, you are all good. If it fails, then the fiasco begins. That one is all cleaned up after removal for closer inspection.
They did come from the factory zinc chromated but it was an option that the buyer had to choose when ordering their plane. This AD is about to extend to the N and R models and those all came primed. There are alot of missing elements to this video.
There was an in-flight break up of a Cessna 210 in Australia. This crash brought the corrosion to everyone's attention. A bunch of engineers put their heads together, the world oscillated, and they came up with the tolerances allowed. How remains a mystery to this day.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Was that INFLIGHT break up in severe turbulence of a thunder storm, maybe? I'd wager if you took that BAD Center section and placed it in some sort of press it would take many tons to deform it, Even though it's corroded.
It was a coastal based plane in a humid salty environment doing a high G turn. It broke the spar anout 6 inches in from the outside edge vertically apparently. Wing folded up.
Wasn’t that 210 with the failure also highly modified? I’m no engineer, but that spar is way overbuilt, and replacing it because of that small amount of surface corrosion is way overkill in my opinion. One spar in a highly modified 210, in a salty environment, fails and the industry overreacts due crooked lawyers and stupid juries. $40_60K for that repair is insane. It is what it is. If new aircraft were affordable, antique 210’s would have been send to the scrap pile decades ago. This is all about destructive corporate greed, and a runaway, weaponized, corruption based, free press, manipulating the minds of the low intelligence people who are so easily deceived. Thanks.
20k for the part? I saw your other video and that kit was 7k. Amazing how you pilots are being taken advantage of. Not fair. I guess am going to have to fix that and start making these parts for less $$$......oh, Thanks again for sharing this video also.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 If Cessna ever decides to make them again at all. Who knows what it would cost Cessna to make them. As it is a cast part do they even have the molding? Or does the company that made them for Cessna have the mold? Doubtful. If they are even still in business. In order to even think about making them again Cessna would need to know how many are needed. It might be possible with modern rapid prototyping to scan the part, use that to make the mold, take an old spar, melt and recast it.
Sadly, this will be the end for a lot of 210s, or pilots willing to fix them. Someone should be able to machine that part with materials for $5000, tops. Using standard aviation cost multiplier of 3x or 4x for the ridiculous liability and bureaucracy excuses, $20k sounds about right.🙄
If I remember right, the carry through is forged, which means the grain structure follows the shape of the caps, whereas a CNC'ed billet would probably have to be heavier for the same strength. As he says, in light aircraft terms, it is a massive lump of aluminium. Wonder how much someone in Russia would charge to machine it from titanium? You're probably still looking at $25k+ to do the install :(
I've been watching several videos of Cessnas and Pipers having issues with spars, wing and strut AD's. And every AD is a wallet killer. The only thing that makes it cost effective is the eye watering cost of a new aircraft vs an older aircraft.
Most Ads are small and easy. Every now and then there is a big one like the 210 Spar. Piper spar is an inspection which they pas 99% of the time and is cheap.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 casting integral strength of aluminium is very low - I think it would be a macnined billet - as you see steel when red hot pounded into shape, increasing molecular ability. I earned good revenue from all these types now literally cracking up, including x 2 210N - all remote area flights - all 200 series Cessnas in Oz have a tough life. You prob know, USA maufactuers set their airframe component limits based on Australian meteorological flight conditions - and all light types operate in the worst convective layer below 10,000 ft. WHEN total cable replacement became Oz CAA mandatory, prices dropped to terrible low. With latest AD, I see good 182...AUD $8,000. Early 310 in great appearence with near new engines and props...AUD $60K...about 30 active AD probably not addressed, certainly not wing cracks. Sad times. Your presenations R a good watch - I know all these tweaky minor differences, having lived the era, worked on & flown.
@@christopherbatty3837 The accident aircraft had a particularly hard life. Modified with a stinger boom on the tail for sensors, then flown 6,000 hours a year in a scanning pattern over land in strips 200' apart and 200' above the ground, with an abrupt climb and steep turn at each end. Gear racks for the electronics to run the sensors replacing seats. www.thomsonaviation.com.au/our-equipment/
@@MargaretLeber Hi Margaret - understand - was CP GA company with predominantly remote area work - from 180/2/5 to all 200 series: hard working lives Cessna certainly didn't envision - AND for a hull life/time period never conceived - as aircraft engineer, I worked on some of these tired-before-their-time machines....Ditto Super Kingair I drove in tropics Oz & PNG into "marginal" strips daily. ✈ Have survey exp, single & multi - lost friend in latter ...straight into hill.
I would pay Mike Patey the $50,000 to build a complete carbon fiber wing with a sold wing spar all the way through instead of this insanity. You may have an experimental but it will be ten times stronger, faster and never need replacement ever again. All your parts would be a lot cheaper as an experimental also.
I fly a Mooney and like the fact the wing is a single unit from one wingtip to the other. Not many wing failures on Mooneys. I look at how piper wings are attached and cringe. The Cessna 210 spar carry through just looks unnecessary.
Seems hinky to me for Cessna to produce a product that time proves under built. Is their insurance available against such an event? In the 70s manufacturing sector got hit with a rash of lawsuits when folks died as a result of faulty design. The prices of every aspect of flying, including flight instruction, went up, up, up‼️😩 Even in Canada where we didn’t permit that kind of litigation, our rates went up. Now through no fault of their own, owners also face 40K or more to regain use of “their” aircraft⁉️😡 Something is rotten in Denmark⁉️😩💰💰💰
$60k? That’s insane! And $20k for a used part? That’s equally likely to fail? That’s completely crazy. The whole liability thing is completely out of hand. People die in automobile crashes all the time but cars don’t cost hundreds of thousands. If used parts go for that kind of money, I’d be worried that people will start cannibalizing aircraft left on the ramp. I’m not a metallurgist, but I would think a new part could be milled out of billet aluminum for far less money and it would be stronger than a cast part. I have a hard time believing that part couldn’t be made new and sold for around $2,000.
I know. It's a plane so the part is expensive etc etc etc. A good shop with the right tooling could probably make that spar for a few grand. But there is the liability which will be the death of creativity and mechanical evolution and development.
Cessna charging $20,000 for that part, when you can purchase some new cars for that price, is reprehensible. It is profiteering since they can make the part for about $1000. This is enough to turn me away from certificated aircraft and point me toward building a sling tsi. These manufacturers don't understand that they're not doing themselves any favors in the long term.
Never trust just a log book entry. If you are buying an AC with a major known AD you are taking the risk that it wasn't pencil whipped to simply sell the AC faster. Sure, you could sue, but that takes years.
You are not kidding. I bought a 310Q with a pre-buy and a fresh annual. On my first annual we discovered corrosion. Tail feathers had to be replaced completely. One wing was removed, sent off, and the spar replaced. The other wing was repaired in place. Paid for that plane twice. - Don the Camera Guy.
"Not as depressed as the owner." I bet that's true!!!!
Yes, It is.
I have a buddy that works on Mercedes at the dealership. His job is to make grown men cry...
For an extra 100 dollars from the factory and an additional 20 pounds of aluminum, that spar could have been made 3 times stronger and never failed under any conditions. Cessna probably saved 50 dollars or so though during production, I guess they never dreamed those planes would fly 5 decades or more. And if they gave so little thought to the carry through spar, what's going to start snapping off next? Manufacturers should calculate how strong the wing spar needs to be, then double it for production like they did with the DC3. Nothing more unsettling than flying around in an old plane and hoping you don't hit turbulence because maybe the wing will snap off.
It could have been a lot bigger, thicker and stronger for sure..
As part of its backgrounding process, the FAA received reports of “widespread and severe corrosion of the carry-thru spar” on Cessna 210G through 210M models, including the T210 variants. “Further investigation identified that these early model airplanes were manufactured without corrosion protection or primer, increasing their susceptibility to corrosion. Additionally, the design of these early model airplanes, where the upper surface of the spar is exposed to the environment, allows a pathway for moisture intrusion. Model 210-series airplanes were also delivered with foam installed along the carry-thru spar lower cap. The foam traps moisture against the lower surface of the carry-thru spar cap, which can increase the development of corrosion,” according to the AD.
After we got a 210 spar inspected, the shop wanted to know if we wanted to glue the interior back on the refinished surface… uh, no. Very nice video.
Yes good idea. No glue and keep an eye on it.
Retired aircraft structural engineer here. If this is just a web problem and the upper and lower flanges have not lost significant material and are not pitted, it seems like this could be repaired. In I-beams the upper and lower flanges take most of the bending loads and the web takes nearly all of the shear loads. For positive loads, the top flange is in compression and the lower flange is in tension. Shear loads from the outboard wing are reacted into the side structure before they reach the center of the cabin, so the I-beam in this area sees virtually no shear load and is in pure bending. In pure bending, the web material has nothing to do other than to locate and stiffen the upper and lower flanges. If this were a manufacturing defect at the military AC factory I used to work at we would have smoothed the damaged web material and reinforced it with two donut shaped doubler plates or patches, one on each side of the web.
If you look at a Cherokee wing spar it is completely built up of layers of plates, angels, and T sections all riveted together. This Cessna carry through could likely be reinforced in this fashion rather than replaced. Of course, you would have to get a field STC for the repair, but for $60,000, that might be possible.
Good points and thanks for the explanation!
I was thinking the same thing. Why fail it for a little corrosion on the web? This wouldn't effect the strength of overall structure, as long as the top and especially the bottom chords are solid.
This is the link to the report and the dimensions and location of the corroded area: www.casa.gov.au/file/211271/download?token=Cx2TxScO
He said the lower flange has "irregularities".
Someone once told me the cheapest part of aircraft ownership was the day it was purchased. I remember the day our A & P said we needed a new carburetor for our C-150. $750 for a used carb. And that almost brought tears. But this…ouch!
Aircraft ownership can have surprises if you are not an educated owner that is for sure.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Good thread of comments on this wing spar...and the cottage industry that General Aviation is. Mark--you have become one of the spokesmen for the private aircraft owner.
“Sleight depression, not nearly as much as the owner who found it though.”
Subtle British humor.
Ha. Sorry. I was amused by that.
Thanks for this video! I've flown on Cardinals and planning on flying a 210 and always wondered about thst carry-through spar. Good to know!
Glad it was helpful!
Shocker! Great video, as usual. Thanks!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Mark you are an amazing teacher, i subscribed just after watching 2 of your videos. 👍
Awesome, thank you!
Same. Subscribed.
@@tkorte101 That is probably the best comment I have ever had. Thanks.
Thank God my 210s spar passed inspection
Yes, Congratulations, but to be honest, most will pass.
Hi Mark thanks again Pre buy inspections a must
Once again Mark, very informative 😎👍🏼Thx!
Glad you enjoyed it
Thanks, Mark! I really appreciate your informative videos on the AD requirements for 210 & 177 wing spar inspections… and the AD requirements for 172 & 182 wing strut inspections! Both can be very expensive repairs… and should be considered before buying these aircraft! Fortunately, 177 aircraft flown in TYPICAL usage do not need the AD inspection until 15,000 flight hours if wing STC modifications have NOT been made…
Thank you for this specific information.
If anyone comes looking. The 177 and the 210 all require inspection and eddy current testing regardless of hours on the airframe.
Got it!
Buy the older model with the strut braced wing! 😉
Actually, there is bad news on that as well. See our new video on the wing strut AD.
Mark, those depressions are called blend-outs of corrosion that you pointed out on the condemned one close to the lightening hole.
So someone has blended the corrosion out and the depth of the blend-out is beyone the manufacturers limits.
Is the material of the replacement one the same material as the condemned one-?
If it is so, then the only difference is the primer coat protecting the replacement one.
For that ridiculous price I would want that forging to be made from titanium material.
Thank you for this extra info.
Mark great information. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it
Well, its 3 years on and at least for Cardinals, the whole thing, parts and labor is in the $30K range. Hardly chump change but at least worth repairing (mine passed with no problems) I don’t know about the 210's but I do know that Cessna is now making replacement spars for the Centurion. The vast Majority of Cardinals are fortunately having no issues.
Thanks for the update.
These are very good videos - Thank You
Glad you like them!
Great info, I was hoping someone would show the details of that fix
Glad you liked it!
Why are things like that with airplanes so ridiculously expensive? The part itself, I can sort of see, but $20-40,000 labor?
You rolled it! Made me smile.
Was this comment about the RV video?
Great video! There’s an Eddy Current inspection for cracks required correct?
Yes.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 right up my alley! I’m an NDT Level 3 and A&P looking for work! Can you keep an ear out for me?
Well done. Very informative.
Glad it was helpful!
GREAT INFO.
Glad you think so!
Boys, your sound is now perfect 👍 also keep up the great work
Thanks! There was a long learning curve on microphones, and STILL we catch wind from time to time. But, it is much better and we thank you for the compliment. - Don the camera guy.
Awesome..good job
Thanks a lot
Im curious to know if the spar was "Cast" aluminum or Forged aluminum. I think its the latter.
Pretty sure it is forged.
I can’t believe this AD affects the Cardinal 177. It’s such a lighter airplane. The wing is over designed for it.
How is that center spar section attached to the airframe? What holds it to the fuselage?
It's all in the structure of the vertical sides of the pane and those big tabs on the center section.
Great video professor !! Always teaching ! 👍
Thanks for the detailed explanation of a $60,000.00 replacement.
Remember that relative to the number of cantilever 210's out there, very few need this, but some do.
Nice info Mark.
Glad it was helpful!
how much is the Piper wing spar equivalent? same ballpark figure?
I really do not know but I imagine a lot. Maybe $30,000. Not sure how much the part is. Anyone know?
Note that the old spar is not zinc chromated and the new one is. Shame Cessna didn’t zinc chromate them from the factory, which is one reason why I like Skywagons with float kits. That green shade is a comfort when inspecting my airplane.
Manny, To be honest, I think that they were corrosion-proofed when new but they have to be stripped and cleaned of all paint and glue etc to be able to see the surface. Ironically the corrosion on the lower surface is caused by the glue that hold the padding and headliner and the steel in the vent tubes up there in damp environments. Anything corrosion proofed is better though.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 It’s my understanding that the AD allows the inspection of the spar to be done in place. That removed spar has no evidence of zinc chromate, although, it may have been alodined. The new one is fully zinc chromated.
The operating environment is the primary contributor to corrosion on the spar, according to what I have read. I know a guy who got “a really good deal” on a 210. I hope it really was.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 210s equipped with air conditioning would be especially vulnerable to condensation as the lines run through the cabin roof through the spar
Yes, That is correct. The inspection is done with the spar carry-through in place. If it passes, you are all good. If it fails, then the fiasco begins. That one is all cleaned up after removal for closer inspection.
They did come from the factory zinc chromated but it was an option that the buyer had to choose when ordering their plane. This AD is about to extend to the N and R models and those all came primed. There are alot of missing elements to this video.
Why is that minimal amount of corrosion so detrimental? It's basically an I Beam with a little corrosion on the web.
There was an in-flight break up of a Cessna 210 in Australia. This crash brought the corrosion to everyone's attention. A bunch of engineers put their heads together, the world oscillated, and they came up with the tolerances allowed. How remains a mystery to this day.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Was that INFLIGHT break up in severe turbulence of a thunder storm, maybe? I'd wager if you took that BAD Center section and placed it in some sort of press it would take many tons to deform it, Even though it's corroded.
It was a coastal based plane in a humid salty environment doing a high G turn. It broke the spar anout 6 inches in from the outside edge vertically apparently. Wing folded up.
@@skywagonuniversity5023
"Wing folded up"!!!!!!
And THAT ain't good !
Wasn’t that 210 with the failure also highly modified? I’m no engineer, but that spar is way overbuilt, and replacing it because of that small amount of surface corrosion is way overkill in my opinion. One spar in a highly modified 210, in a salty environment, fails and the industry overreacts due crooked lawyers and stupid juries. $40_60K for that repair is insane. It is what it is. If new aircraft were affordable, antique 210’s would have been send to the scrap pile decades ago. This is all about destructive corporate greed, and a runaway, weaponized, corruption based, free press, manipulating the minds of the low intelligence people who are so easily deceived. Thanks.
Wow....that fix costs nearly as much as the plane did brand new!! But an inflight failure would be far, far worse ......
It's very expensive and luckily quite rare to need this.
That's good to hear!
20k for the part? I saw your other video and that kit was 7k. Amazing how you pilots are being taken advantage of. Not fair. I guess am going to have to fix that and start making these parts for less $$$......oh, Thanks again for sharing this video also.
Yes, they probably cost 10% of that to make. Cessna does not make them again yet. The ones used to repair these planes are good used ones.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 If Cessna ever decides to make them again at all. Who knows what it would cost Cessna to make them. As it is a cast part do they even have the molding? Or does the company that made them for Cessna have the mold? Doubtful. If they are even still in business.
In order to even think about making them again Cessna would need to know how many are needed.
It might be possible with modern rapid prototyping to scan the part, use that to make the mold, take an old spar, melt and recast it.
Excellent video
Thank you very much!
I want these failed parts tested. Stress to failure and see how weak they really are.
So do I. 99% of them would pass a test too.
Thanks!
Welcome!
Nice.
Sadly, this will be the end for a lot of 210s, or pilots willing to fix them. Someone should be able to machine that part with materials for $5000, tops. Using standard aviation cost multiplier of 3x or 4x for the ridiculous liability and bureaucracy excuses, $20k sounds about right.🙄
If I remember right, the carry through is forged, which means the grain structure follows the shape of the caps, whereas a CNC'ed billet would probably have to be heavier for the same strength. As he says, in light aircraft terms, it is a massive lump of aluminium.
Wonder how much someone in Russia would charge to machine it from titanium?
You're probably still looking at $25k+ to do the install :(
Who in the east bay can do the inspection Mark
I'd take it to Toms aircraft or Steve's Aircraft, both at lampson field in Lakeport.
Man, that damage seems very minor from my point of view here ... 50 grand! Jesus, what an AD!! A Killer AD.
Indeed.
Ouch!!!
Gulp! I’ll continue to rent.
That is a worst scenario.
Interesting
I've been watching several videos of Cessnas and Pipers having issues with spars, wing and strut AD's.
And every AD is a wallet killer.
The only thing that makes it cost effective is the eye watering cost of a new aircraft vs an older aircraft.
Most Ads are small and easy. Every now and then there is a big one like the 210 Spar. Piper spar is an inspection which they pas 99% of the time and is cheap.
"Cast" ...casting ? Aluminium alloy ? Surely a billet. ✈
I'd assume a billet but it is all rounded off and looks very moulded or cast too. Not sure.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 casting integral strength of aluminium is very low - I think it would be a macnined billet - as you see steel when red hot pounded into shape, increasing molecular ability.
I earned good revenue from all these types now literally cracking up, including x 2 210N - all remote area flights - all 200 series Cessnas in Oz have a tough life. You prob know, USA maufactuers set their airframe component limits based on Australian meteorological flight conditions - and all light types operate in the worst convective layer below 10,000 ft.
WHEN total cable replacement became Oz CAA mandatory, prices dropped to terrible low. With latest AD, I see good 182...AUD $8,000. Early 310 in great appearence with near new engines and props...AUD $60K...about 30 active AD probably not addressed, certainly not wing cracks.
Sad times.
Your presenations R a good watch - I know all these tweaky minor differences, having lived the era, worked on & flown.
@@christopherbatty3837 The accident aircraft had a particularly hard life. Modified with a stinger boom on the tail for sensors, then flown 6,000 hours a year in a scanning pattern over land in strips 200' apart and 200' above the ground, with an abrupt climb and steep turn at each end. Gear racks for the electronics to run the sensors replacing seats. www.thomsonaviation.com.au/our-equipment/
@@MargaretLeber Hi Margaret - understand - was CP GA company with predominantly remote area work - from 180/2/5 to all 200 series: hard working lives Cessna certainly didn't envision - AND for a hull life/time period never conceived - as aircraft engineer, I worked on some of these tired-before-their-time machines....Ditto Super Kingair I drove in tropics Oz & PNG into "marginal" strips daily. ✈ Have survey exp, single & multi - lost friend in latter ...straight into hill.
Thats one exspensive spar. If I was buying a Cessna it wouldn't be no 210 or 177, Give me a 185 or 206 instead! lol.
Time to flash up the 3D printer
With aluminum in the tank.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 exactly
I would pay Mike Patey the $50,000 to build a complete carbon fiber wing with a sold wing spar all the way through instead of this insanity. You may have an experimental but it will be ten times stronger, faster and never need replacement ever again. All your parts would be a lot cheaper as an experimental also.
What makes you think Patey would design you a complete wing for 50 grand? Weird comment to make
Build it, test it, break it...
I fly a Mooney and like the fact the wing is a single unit from one wingtip to the other. Not many wing failures on Mooneys. I look at how piper wings are attached and cringe. The Cessna 210 spar carry through just looks unnecessary.
1. $20 grand because they're old stock or newly manufactured to comply with potential AD failure?
2. Are the A-F 210 carry-throughs the same?
One additional question: can a used one having passed inspection be used and at less cost?
Unfortunately all the ones out there are good used ones and they are the expensive ones. Cessna will make them new soon and they will be even more.
Any 210 with a strut, does not have this AD, That would be 61 to 66.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Thanks for your responses.
20G for a piece of metal??????? OMG 😲😲
A shafting due to supply and demand.
Aircraft parts = big money.
Would anodising this part not be the answer
I bet it would. Something at least is better than another carry through that is going to do the same thing.
Seems hinky to me for Cessna to produce a product that time proves under built. Is their insurance available against such an event? In the 70s manufacturing sector got hit with a rash of lawsuits when folks died as a result of faulty design. The prices of every aspect of flying, including flight instruction, went up, up, up‼️😩
Even in Canada where we didn’t permit that kind of litigation, our rates went up. Now through no fault of their own, owners also face 40K or more to regain use of “their” aircraft⁉️😡 Something is rotten in Denmark⁉️😩💰💰💰
$60k? That’s insane! And $20k for a used part? That’s equally likely to fail? That’s completely crazy. The whole liability thing is completely out of hand. People die in automobile crashes all the time but cars don’t cost hundreds of thousands. If used parts go for that kind of money, I’d be worried that people will start cannibalizing aircraft left on the ramp. I’m not a metallurgist, but I would think a new part could be milled out of billet aluminum for far less money and it would be stronger than a cast part. I have a hard time believing that part couldn’t be made new and sold for around $2,000.
I know. It's a plane so the part is expensive etc etc etc. A good shop with the right tooling could probably make that spar for a few grand. But there is the liability which will be the death of creativity and mechanical evolution and development.
It's the FAA paperwork trail that's expensive
Cessna charging $20,000 for that part, when you can purchase some new cars for that price, is reprehensible. It is profiteering since they can make the part for about $1000. This is enough to turn me away from certificated aircraft and point me toward building a sling tsi. These manufacturers don't understand that they're not doing themselves any favors in the long term.
I know. It is just a block of Aluminum and they have made them before it's not rocket science.
Never trust just a log book entry. If you are buying an AC with a major known AD you are taking the risk that it wasn't pencil whipped to simply sell the AC faster. Sure, you could sue, but that takes years.
You are not kidding. I bought a 310Q with a pre-buy and a fresh annual. On my first annual we discovered corrosion. Tail feathers had to be replaced completely. One wing was removed, sent off, and the spar replaced. The other wing was repaired in place. Paid for that plane twice. - Don the Camera Guy.
Makes ya wanna gag.
So many ways to get into a major very costly repair Buyer beware
Kind of makes me happy I do not own an aircraft.
Only $666.66 per pound plus $1714 per pound installation.
You just have to own the right one.
MAJOR AERO REPAIR, THE CESSNA 210 TRANSVERSE WING BOX SPAR, I'M WONDERING IF THAT'S MOUNTED WITH HIGH LOCKS.. ???
Ouch!
Ouch indeed. Luckily, not too many airplanes will actually need the fix.