|
|
Mike -
This is the T-34 and I believe that the FAA is doing the right thing because all of the T-34 fleet has been used for many,many years in the military for training. It was the first plane I flew in the AF in 1958. They have been ridden pretty hard over the years.
There is a substantial program at a company that is looking hard at the problems of the T-34. One of the discoveries that so far has not been a factor in a crash of the T-34 has to do with an area of the wing near the landing gear. The suspected cause of this "hot spot" is landings - not air combat sorties for hire. If there is one thing all the T-34's have in common is landings - by the thousands. Another factor that the FAA has to keep in mind is that the wing on the T-34 is, in many cases, identical to those in the Bonanza and Baron fleet. And "very similar" in the remainder of the fleet. The implications of this are serious indeed, especially if the data shows that a wing problem is not necessarily "longevity based". High numbers of landings on the early Bonanzas, coupled with flying in parts of the country that have high turbulence (mountains, deserts and both mountain & deserts), could produce the same problems that the T-34 appears to be having. At the moment, these are purely hypotheses that are being examined. As I understand it, this company is doing a first class job of investigating, analysis and developing fixes that address the real problems - as well as developing new methods of field repair that will fix the problems as painlessly as possible, should they become necessary.
But this problem leads to this question: Is the wing of the Lancair ES almost identical in its basic DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION, or "very similar"? I doubt if a serious accident whereby a wing departs a Columbia will not have a consequence for us ES drivers as well. And the converse is also true. I also suspect that there are other parts of both aircraft that are similar enough to tie the two together at some time in the future.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers,
John
<MikeEasley@aol.com> wrote:
I read an article the other day about some WW2 trainer (pardon my lack of detail, don't remember the model #) that is a popular plane for restoration and flying to airshows, but a small percentage of the fleet is used for air combat. The air combat planes have been breaking, cracking spars, crashing. The rest of the owners are fighting the FAA because the FAA wants to release an AD that the owners on the non-air combat aircraft don't think is necessary because they don't routinely subject their aircraft to the G forces. But the FAA insists on treating that model as one "type" and they look at the statistics for that "type" as a whole.
--
|
|