Garfly Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/cessna-210-wing-spar-ad-issued/?MailingID=296&utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Cessna+210+Wing+Spar+AD+Issued%2C+Nashville+Pummeled+By+Storms%2C+EAA+Rebuts+FAA+Stance+on+Drone+ID&utm_campaign=Cessna+210+Wing+Spar+AD+Issued%2C+Nashville+Pummeled+By+Storms%2C+EAA+Rebuts+FAA+Stance+on+Drone+ID+-+Wednesday+March+4%2C+2020
Guest Machtuk Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 Gee that's gotta hurt! Be interesting to see if this extends to Cessna's other fully canter levered model of the same era? Cessna's value just plummeted!
onetrack Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 I wonder if it was the investigation into the crash below, that found the corrosion problem? I didn't see it mentioned anywhere in the report, but it may have been a contributing factor. https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2017/aair/ao-2017-102/
giantkingsquid Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 It was the one near Mount Isa. I thought the 177 was covered by the service letter, but doesn't seem to be by the AD.
turboplanner Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 I wonder if it was the investigation into the crash below, that found the corrosion problem? I didn't see it mentioned anywhere in the report, but it may have been a contributing factor. https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2017/aair/ao-2017-102/ I haven't looked it up, but I think there were several. Nearly all were due to pilots grossly over-flying in rough weather, which would exacerbate any deterioration of strength due to corrosion, but also exceed the loads the engineers expected for their original Application Design. The design comes from the 1950s, so nearly 70 years old, first production was 1957, 63 years ago, Cessna shut down production 34 years ago and replaced it with the C206 which has wing struts and is built like a truck.....and is still in production, so you can go out and buy a new one if you want all-weather flying. The C210 always was a Ferrari, popular for taking six people somewhere fast from good airfield to good airfield in good weather, at a low cost per Nm when you divide it by the six people, so often used for club safaris such as Melbourne-Mildura-Coober Pedy - Uluru/Alice, Darwin - Thursday Island Weipa - and whichever Whitsunday strips you could fit it on the way home. 1
Thruster88 Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 First failure of this component results in an AD being issued to prevent it happening again. The system working as it should. Many owners would have already followed the Cessna service letter that came out shortly after the accident. The crack propagated from a corrosion pit only 0.0011 inches deep hence the need for eddy current inspection. 1 1 2
facthunter Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 It's a pretty shallow girder no doubt to provide headroom for the occupants. It's actually failed right where you would expect it to right where the thickness first becomes the minimum in the tensioned (lower) part of the I beam. I'd like to see that beefed up if I was flying one. Without a strut there's a lot hanging on that lower surface. Nev
Guest Machtuk Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 Having worked on the C210/C177 and flown both types I never did feel comfy when I was subjected to turbulent weather, slowing down was all one could do. The C210 is a very capable plane but like ALL A/C they have their limitations.
facthunter Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 Yes, you are usually cruising above the proper speed for turbulence penetration, anyhow. Some earlier ones lost the wing because people wrapped a lot of aileron on to enter a split arsed turn onto base for the audience. Nev
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now