B: RE: Re: new G36/58 -carry-through spar web

George Braly gwbraly at gami.com
Wed Sep 20 20:32:59 EDT 2006 

Nathan,

Today, I received an "out of the blue"  telephone call from a highly
experienced DER with a long list of credentials.

He had read the RFP, and was calling me to ask what I thought about it.
In passing,  I asked him what he thought it would cost to fully comply
with the RFP and meet all of the requirements of the deliverables
described in the document. 

His estimate was substantially higher - - substantially -- than the 200K
estimate floating around. 

As he put it,  to do all of what is encompassed in the request and do it
for a fixed price with the risk of running into problems,  would be
rather expensive. 

                ****************************

This is a bad situation.

We  KNOW what is causing the cracking.  There is virtually no
uncertainty about the cause.  We don't need a pretty multi-colored FEM
to tell us that.

In that sense,  the "study" to be done is a study to confirm what is
virtually obvious to one skilled in the engineering science and familiar
with the airframe. 

There are known good solutions to keep the structure from cracking or to
repair the structures for much less than the currently available repair.

The problem is to get those approved in a timely manner.

Frankly, we would have already had that done if the Dec 04 T-34 crash
had not happened.  

I am concerned that the ABS is going to set an unfortunate precedent
with how they are getting ready to proceed on this issue.

To the extent that the ABS believes the FAA is requiring them to spend
200K or more on this type of study - - I think the ABS is badly
mis-reading the FAA's position on this issue and even if they are not -
- there are valid approaches to the problem that are not contemplated by
the RFP.

And last, as the DER pointed out to me on the phone today,  the RFP
attempts - -  in rather not so subtle ways - - to dictate the desired
outcome of the study.  Which sort of puts a serious cloud over how the
future results of the study will be received at the end point. 


Regards,  George





-----Original Message-----
From: beech-owners-bounces at beechcraft.org
[mailto:beech-owners-bounces at beechcraft.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Ulrich
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:25 PM
To: beech-owners at beechcraft.org
Subject: B: Re: new G36/58 -carry-through spar web

I flew in a V35A today that had the spar web "fix" installed. I didn't
feel
safer.

My business is engineering consulting and development, and I've done
quite a
bit of FEA and modeling of structures. In any field other than aviation,
the
cost of the original engineering studies commissioned by the ABS would
be
considered quite high by a factor of at least two or more. I've read the
final reports by both engineers, and despite their credentials neither
report impressed me.

I also think that a cost of $200,000 for the next phase would be
exorbitant,
but, again, my experience does not include the aviation field and I'm
not a
DER. Fortunately, they've issued an RFP that should solicit some more
reasonable proposals. The RFP seems quite logical to me, with the proper
mix
of experimental and FEA analysis (credit Tom Turner, I believe). Done
properly, the results should tell us exactly what is necessary (if
anything)
to resolve the spar web issue. Based on my experience and what we would
charge for such a project, I think that the scope of work could be
accomplished for well under $100k, especially given that ABS is
supplying
the airframes and test specimens. If so, as an ABS member I think that
is
money well-spent.

Much better for us to be proactive and come up with a reasonable
solution
before the FAA and Raytheon ram a horrendously expensive and ineffective
AD
down our throats (or force us to retire our airframes).

Nathan

-----Original Message-----
From: beech-owners-bounces at beechcraft.org
[mailto:beech-owners-bounces at beechcraft.org] On Behalf Of Walter
Atkinson
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:34 PM
To: beech-owners at beechcraft.org
Subject: Re: B: Re: new G36/58 -carry-through spar web

Bad news, Kevin.  I agree with you.

Walter


On Sep 20, 2006, at 11:58 AM, Kevin O'Halloran wrote:

"It's possible that members with web cracks are more likely to have
responded to the survey, so we cannot draw definitive conclusions from
the
data alone."

If the percentages reported to the ABS were correct---every repair
station
in America would be full of bonanzas and barons waiting to be repaired.
IN MY---AND ONLY MY OPINION
since no deaths----and few if any planes grounded for good.
I think the ongoing inspection and approved repair---should deal with
the
problem----spending massive amounts of money on this is not called
for----some in the ABS want to do a $200,000 "study"----this is more
than
the T34 guys have spent on their problem ( which has cost over 6)
lives)
I believe in being proactive----but not in this case.
ready for the flames
Kevin
----- Original Message ----- From: "bonanza8" <Bonanza8 at bonanza.org>
To: <beech-owners at beechcraft.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 11:12 AM
Subject: B: new G36/58 -carry-through spar web


Howard:

Raytheon made the change to a heavier web material in the mid-1980s that
it
(and the FAA) considers to be a terminating action.  Airplanes produced
after the change do not require the inspections. The serial model
effectiveness is at http://bonanza.org/news.cfm?id=56.

We have only very isolated reports of similar spar web cracks in
"post-AD"
airplanes, and those have been in heavy instructional use.
Those airplanes are not reflected in the survey data since we only asked
members with AD-affected airplanes to respond.

It's possible that members with web cracks are more likely to have
responded
to the survey, so we cannot draw definitive conclusions from the data
alone.

Thomas P. Turner
Manager of Technical Services
American Bonanza Society

Plan now to attend the 2006 ABS Convention October 4-8, Colorado
Springs,
Colorado




-----Original Message-----
From: Howard G Page [mailto:hpage66 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 11:09 AM
To: beech-owners at beechcraft.org
Subject: Re: B: RE: RE: Raytheon Aircraft sale price - new G36/58
-carry-through spar web

According  the ABS survey:

   http://bonanza.org/downloads/spar.data.numbers.pdf

13% of the 36 and 48% of the 58 modelsad cracked  carry-through spar
webs.

Question: Has RAC mad any changes in the new G36/58 models to address
this
issue?

Regards,

Howard

----- Original Message ---- From: Pilot
To: beech-owners at beechcraft.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 4:19:56 AM
Subject: Re: B: RE: RE: Raytheon Aircraft sale price

I hope that whoever buys it continues the lines of small aircraft and
parts.
They have to be making a proffit on the G-36 at over $600,000 a copy for
a
machine made on paid for tooling and design. There was an article in the
Newsletter? that stated that Beech did not beleive they could get much
more
out of the plane as far as aerodynamics. But it is a good solid plane
that
any pilot would be proud to own not some cookie cutter plastic
fantastic.


  John Majane
  F-35 KFDK

More information about the beech-owners mailing list