Do planes "expire"?

[Marco Rispoli]

Check this out:

"Paul Sterling of Sterling Aviation Technologies, Inc.
has FAA approval for his Wing Life Extension STC.
You can now get a minimum of 7650 additional hours past the 11k hour limit"

Found this on this site: http://www.pipertomahawk.com

(Yes i am looking into Tomahawks ... I am aware of the reputation they
have).

My question is, from this text it looks like planes... "expire". Once the
airframe is past a certain number of hours, that's it. They are toast.

You have kits to prolong their life (for the Tomahawk at least, as I have
seen) but ... what happens after the life goes past that threshold?

Do you "chuck the plane" in the trash?

Do you replace the wings? I can't even imagine how much that would cost.

I can't believe this... I was under the delusion that planes would last
forever... for some reason I find this ... "sad".


--
Marco Rispoli - NJ, USA / PP-ASEL
My On-line pilot community -> http://www.thepilotlounge.com

[Kyle Boatright]

"Marco Rispoli" > wrote in message
.net...
> Check this out:
>
> "Paul Sterling of Sterling Aviation Technologies, Inc.
> has FAA approval for his Wing Life Extension STC.
> You can now get a minimum of 7650 additional hours past the 11k hour
limit"
>
> Found this on this site: http://www.pipertomahawk.com
>
> (Yes i am looking into Tomahawks ... I am aware of the reputation they
> have).
>
> My question is, from this text it looks like planes... "expire". Once the
> airframe is past a certain number of hours, that's it. They are toast.
>
> You have kits to prolong their life (for the Tomahawk at least, as I have
> seen) but ... what happens after the life goes past that threshold?
>
> Do you "chuck the plane" in the trash?
>
> Do you replace the wings? I can't even imagine how much that would cost.
>
> I can't believe this... I was under the delusion that planes would last
> forever... for some reason I find this ... "sad".
>
>
> --
> Marco Rispoli - NJ, USA / PP-ASEL
> My On-line pilot community -> http://www.thepilotlounge.com

Some airplanes (and components) are life limited, others are not. Depends
on what rules were in place when the aircraft received its original
certification. For instance, a Tomahawk is life limited, but a C-152 (or
150 isn't). The Cessnas were certified before the FAR's were updated in the
early-mid '70's, and therefore don't have a life limit.

Beyond original certification, some AD's also mandate the retirement of some
or all of the airframe at a specified limit.

Once the airframe is used up, it is parted out, with the usable parts sold
as replacements. For instance, my understanding is that the wing spar is
the life limited item on a Tomahawk. IF that is true, the fuse, empennage,
flaps, ailerons, etc. would be usable after the wing is scrapped.

KB

[FUji]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Marco Rispoli" > wrote in message
> .net...
> > Check this out:
> >
> > "Paul Sterling of Sterling Aviation Technologies, Inc.
> > has FAA approval for his Wing Life Extension STC.
> > You can now get a minimum of 7650 additional hours past the 11k hour
> limit"
> >
> > Found this on this site: http://www.pipertomahawk.com
> >
> > (Yes i am looking into Tomahawks ... I am aware of the reputation they
> > have).
> >
> > My question is, from this text it looks like planes... "expire". Once
the
> > airframe is past a certain number of hours, that's it. They are toast.
> >
> > You have kits to prolong their life (for the Tomahawk at least, as I
have
> > seen) but ... what happens after the life goes past that threshold?
> >
> > Do you "chuck the plane" in the trash?
> >
> > Do you replace the wings? I can't even imagine how much that would cost.
> >
> > I can't believe this... I was under the delusion that planes would last
> > forever... for some reason I find this ... "sad".
> >
> >
> > --
> > Marco Rispoli - NJ, USA / PP-ASEL
> > My On-line pilot community -> http://www.thepilotlounge.com
>
> Some airplanes (and components) are life limited, others are not. Depends
> on what rules were in place when the aircraft received its original
> certification. For instance, a Tomahawk is life limited, but a C-152 (or
> 150 isn't). The Cessnas were certified before the FAR's were updated in
the
> early-mid '70's, and therefore don't have a life limit.
>
> Beyond original certification, some AD's also mandate the retirement of
some
> or all of the airframe at a specified limit.
>
> Once the airframe is used up, it is parted out, with the usable parts sold
> as replacements. For instance, my understanding is that the wing spar is
> the life limited item on a Tomahawk. IF that is true, the fuse, empennage,
> flaps, ailerons, etc. would be usable after the wing is scrapped.
>
> KB
>

IIRC the Tomahawk wing retirement was the result of an AD, not a type
certificate limit like the Cirrus. I'm finding most Tomahawks are in the
7-8000 hr range and that the majority aren't used for training anymore. So
high average private use of 250 hrs/yr would give them another 12 years
minimum before the STC was necessary. Then with the STC you could squeeze
another 30 years out of them. By then I don't think you'll see too many 70
year old Tomahawks around.

[C J Campbell]

Some planes have a limited airframe life. Most do not, but notable
exceptions include the Tomahawk and the Cirrus. Even so, all airplanes have
parts that have to be inspected, overhauled, and replaced occasionally. An
airplane with a limited airframe life will probably be scrapped at the end
of that time.

[Michael]

"Marco Rispoli" > wrote
> (Yes i am looking into Tomahawks ... I am aware of the reputation they
> have).

There's nothing wrong with Tomahawks. Even their most ardent
detractors only claim that they have a problem when spun (my
experience with spinning them, as well as FAA tests, indicate these
problems are imaginary) and in any case, lots of airpcraft can't be
spun safely, which doesn't make them bad airpcraft. I've never owned
an aircraft that could be spun safely.

> My question is, from this text it looks like planes... "expire". Once the
> airframe is past a certain number of hours, that's it. They are toast.

That depends on the airplane. Airplanes certified under the old CAR-3
regulations were not required to show/estimate a service life for most
airframe components. Everything was on-condition. Because of
grandfathering, lots of airplanes are still being built to those old
regulations with only minor changes. That includes all the new Cessna
singles and most Pipers, Beeches, and Mooneys, for example.

This made a certain amount of sense back in the tube-and-fabric days.
Steel doesn't have a practical fatigue life. As long as you don't
overstrees it and it doesn't rust, it will pretty much last forever.
Fabric was always an on-condition item. Wood has its own special
problems - it seems to last forever when taken care of, but glues give
- and are hard to inspect.

Airplanes that were clean-sheet designs under FAR 23 usually have
airframe component limitations. Same for the JAR certified stuff.

You need to realize that aluminum airplanes don't last forever anyway.
Aluminum has a fatigue life. That's not a big deal for most of the
airplane, since most of the skin is sized more for handling
requirements than structural integrity, but that's not the case with
spars. You should not expect Aluminum spars to last forever.

On the other hand, 11,000 hours for the Tommy was overly conservative
and of course now that many of them are reaching that number of hours,
an STC to increase that is available. That's how it generally goes
with life-limited components - if the initial estimate is overly
conservative and time starts running out with most of them in good
shape, someone comes along and gets an STC to extend the component
life.

A 10,000 hour Aluminum GA airframe is OLD. It may still be OK, but
most of them are not. Even if the Aluminum itself is still OK (it is
often showing signs of corrosion, cracks, and many working rivets) you
still have the issues of old and many-times-flexed wiring, pulleys,
cables, clamps, and all the other stuff. Can all these things be
repaired/replaced? Sure, but it takes time and money. A 10,000 hour
airframe is rarely a bargain.

> You have kits to prolong their life (for the Tomahawk at least, as I have
> seen) but ... what happens after the life goes past that threshold?

If it's still in good shape, there will be another kit.

Michael

[Dennis]

You should look into a Beechcraft 77 Skipper.. Much better than a
Traumahawk.. I have one that maybe forsale soon (if my wife lets my buy a
Cirrus) and its got to be one of the very best Skipper's out there..

Dennis
N3868J
MyAirplane.com


"Marco Rispoli" > wrote in message
.net...
> Check this out:
>
> "Paul Sterling of Sterling Aviation Technologies, Inc.
> has FAA approval for his Wing Life Extension STC.
> You can now get a minimum of 7650 additional hours past the 11k hour
limit"
>
> Found this on this site: http://www.pipertomahawk.com
>
> (Yes i am looking into Tomahawks ... I am aware of the reputation they
> have).
>
> My question is, from this text it looks like planes... "expire". Once the
> airframe is past a certain number of hours, that's it. They are toast.
>
> You have kits to prolong their life (for the Tomahawk at least, as I have
> seen) but ... what happens after the life goes past that threshold?
>
> Do you "chuck the plane" in the trash?
>
> Do you replace the wings? I can't even imagine how much that would cost.
>
> I can't believe this... I was under the delusion that planes would last
> forever... for some reason I find this ... "sad".
>
>
> --
> Marco Rispoli - NJ, USA / PP-ASEL
> My On-line pilot community -> http://www.thepilotlounge.com
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> You should look into a Beechcraft 77 Skipper.. Much better than a
> Traumahawk.. I have one that maybe forsale soon (if my wife lets my buy a
> Cirrus) and its got to be one of the very best Skipper's out there..

We saw two of them parked side-by-side at SNF in Florida -- a truly rare
sight. I don't think I'd seen five Skippers in my life up till then.

What's the story with that bird? Why are they so nearly identical to the
Tomahawk? Heck, they look as if they could have been built on the same
production line!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ray Andraka]

The flying club where I learned to fly had 3 of them (plus a sundowner and a
sierra), which is roughly 1% of all of them built. (There were three hundred
some-odd of them built). The Skipper is a fun airplane to fly, but not a very
good travelling machine (too slow, and not much useful load). You can tell them
apart from a traumahawk by looking at the top of the tail. The tomahawk has a
couple inches of the vertical fin above the stabilizer. The Skipper does not.

Jay Honeck wrote:

> > You should look into a Beechcraft 77 Skipper.. Much better than a
> > Traumahawk.. I have one that maybe forsale soon (if my wife lets my buy a
> > Cirrus) and its got to be one of the very best Skipper's out there..
>
> We saw two of them parked side-by-side at SNF in Florida -- a truly rare
> sight. I don't think I'd seen five Skippers in my life up till then.
>
> What's the story with that bird? Why are they so nearly identical to the
> Tomahawk? Heck, they look as if they could have been built on the same
> production line!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759