The Nuts amd Bolts

[tecnamman]

I urge all fellow Tecnam owners to consider the latest Airworthiness Bulletin AWB 02-029 Issue 2 dated 3/3/08.....why Tecnam don't use AN/NAS fasteners is totally beyond me....for a few $$$'s (or Euros) more they could use certified hardware and going to AN instead of metric is just common sense??

 

I recently purchased some AN bolts, nuts and washers to replace the suspect undercart bolts....and, as the local maintenance facility didn't have them in stock, I had to order them. Minimum quantity 10 bolts and a 25 nuts from the hardware supplier!!!!

 

The local maintenance shop owner and I agreed that as I would end up with so many spare bolts and nuts, I'm going to have keep the Tecnam for a bloody long time!

 

Any comments on my thoughts fellow Tecnam devotees?

 

 

[Bruce]

David,

 

The AWB you refer to relates to the Tecnam P2002JF of which there are seven of type on the CASA register. Your aircraft is Ultralight registered and you will need to check with Chris Keihn at RA Aus to make sure that you are allowed to modify the bolts.

 

Owners of any LSA certified aircraft should not under any circumstances modify their aircraft without approval in writing from the respective manufacturer as this will invalidate the LSA certification. I am unaware that Tecnam have given a blanket approval for replacement of any bolt with AN hardware on an LSA certified aircraft by owners or maintenance organisations in Australia. Tecnam have updated the two outer bolts on each leg and these are available from your dealer as a replacement kit.

 

There are many Tecnam aircraft in schools accumulating high hours per month and high total hours without incident. I think that the quality of instruction given in these schools and the diligence of their maintenance person in checking undercarriage bolt torque settings has a lot to do with their trouble free performance.

 

On the subject of AN bolts versus metric, European manufacturers were producing aircraft for the European market long before the markets opened up in USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Metric bolts were used for a metric marketplace and it it is not just a case of stick an AN bolt in the hole as the bearings and bushes used are also metric. As the LSA market develops outside of Europe, many changes to the way aircraft are designed and put together will be market driven. In the meantime finished aircraft leave the Tecnam factory at a rate of over one per day!

 

Regards

 

Bruce

 

 

[Guest Cloudsuck]

We have a Qantas type technician on our strip who thinks that if AN bolts are not used, the wings will fall off, the undercarriage will collapse, the engine will fall out and we will all die. He is a student pilot and refuses to fly in anything built without AN bolts (he has been a student for a very long time). I also have a LAME friend with the same outlook but he only fly’s "Real aircraft" anyway. [/font]

 

 

I think it is a sign of techs who have grown up on US made aircraft. I always find it difficult to understand how some are prepared to fly a 40 year old Cessna full rust or a homemade wood and rag aircraft rather than a brand new euro factory built aircraft with metric bolts.

 

 

 

As far as undercarriage bolts go, Jabiru had a big problem with the inboard undercarriage bolts breaking and they were all AN bolts while the legs on CT aircraft were cracking on non training aircraft in everyday gentle use.

 

 

 

I think it is a sign of good engineering that aircraft which are bounced in time and time again by students only damage bolts and not legs. A bit of preventative maint by checking an replacing bolts on training aircraft undercarriage is better than broken or fractured legs. ANY training aircraft which does not receive regular maint on undercarriage are an accident waiting to happen. The AN/AD only relates to JF models and these models are the only ones which have had the problems. It might be a coincidence that all of the JF's in Australia are used by a large training school. [/font]

 

 

For my money, the Tecnam is one of the best constructed LSA' s I have ever seen. The undercarriage, engine and wings all bolt directly to a beautifully made chrome molly truss frame with a massive spar carry through. Beats bolting things straight through fibreglass any day.

 

 

 

[tecnamman]

I agree with you that Tecnam are soundly engineered and professionally assembled, and I also agree with you that a privately owned Sierra will probably never experience the sorts of problems that relate to flying school mishaps. There is no difference between the undercarriage on the 2002 ultalight and cert. JF models apart from the brakes...JF have Cleveland brakes, the uncert Marc Ingegno (Italian).

 

I looked at different ultralight types that were on the market at the time and had several criteria to satisfy before investing in a low winger......one was that if you had the misfortune to roll over, you could open the canopy and get out in an emergency i.e. fire. How many low wing ultralight designs permit canopy opening when inverted on the deck? The other was that it had to be all metal construction so that in the event of said misfortune, the local airframe repairer could put Humpty back together again.. The Tecnam satisfied these basic requirements.

 

You maybe right about 'Qantas type' engineers and AN bolts Cloudsuck...I'm not going there mate!!

 

Oh, and I agree with you about 40 year old Cessnas etc and the corrosion/rust problems...but that opens up another hornets nest doesn't it?

 

Cheers and thanks for your feedback

 

 

[Guest Cloudsuck]

I'm with you Tecnamman, the Sierra is simply the nicest aircraft I have ever owned or flown. I love the roll rate and all round handling. It should be aerobatic!

 

 

[timshel]

I have just purchased a Tecnam p92 super echo (RA AUS rego) and whilst awaiting and "awaiting" and "awaiting" delivery was concerned that the assembler here in AUS was replacing the "standard" bolts for wing attachment and undercarriage with "aircraft grade" bolts. He mentioned that the tecnam supplied bolts were carrying the wing and other loads on the thread and not on the shaft and in his mind this was not as strong. I am not sure if this swithc has been approved. I suppose I should contact RA-AUS about this switch and see what the go is. ? Names withheld at this stage.

 

 

[TechMan]

I have just purchased a Tecnam p92 super echo (RA AUS rego) and whilst awaiting and "awaiting" and "awaiting" delivery was concerned that the assembler here in AUS was replacing the "standard" bolts for wing attachment and undercarriage with "aircraft grade" bolts. He mentioned that the tecnam supplied bolts were carrying the wing and other loads on the thread and not on the shaft and in his mind this was not as strong. I am not sure if this swithc has been approved. I suppose I should contact RA-AUS about this switch and see what the go is. ? Names withheld at this stage.

You will find that this organisation has sought the approval of Tecnam and also has numerous CAR35 engineering orders that they paid for themselves in order to implement these and other changes.

 

Other changes included before delivery is the installation of an electric fuel pump, which the brochure says is standard, yet it is not fitted, and the installation of wing fuel drains (a good idea in my book).

 

Chris

 

 

[timshel]

Yep spoke to said organisation - service has been sensational. Very happy with the mods they have made on my plane. Seems sensible and safe and fully approved so I found out!! Nice that they have made a great idea also fully legal. Very happy with plane all round actually.