Arrow annual woes

[[email protected]]

Our 1979 Arrow IV is in the shop for its annual inspection. As usual, the
inspection itself went smoothly, but it uncovered some maintenance items
that will run into several AMUs. Here are the top three uglies:

1) The inspection part of Piper Service Bulletin 1161 resulted in
identification of cracks in both affected wing ribs. That's the bad news.
The good news is that the cracks are in locations that will allow the use of
the Piper repair kits, which Piper stocks. Jack Allison has posted on this
NG his horror story of replacing the ribs when the cracks precluded use of
the repair kits, so in a way we feel lucky. Cost estimate for the SB
compliance with the repair kits is about 1.3 AMU, including parts and the
initial inspection.

2) The hydraulic power pack has to be replaced or overhauled. We can't feel
too bad about this one because it's the original (1979) unit. 27 years is a
more than reasonable service life. A rebuilt replacement goes for 0.8 AMU,
which is about the cost of overhauling ours. We will do a swap in order to
avoid downtime for an overhaul.

3) The biggie! The support structure under the wing walk is cracked in
several places and needs to be replaced. This is apparent from a slight
"oilcanning" of the wing skin in the wing walk area when we step on it.
Repair will necessitate removing the right wing, a bunch of drilling to
remove the old structure, replacing it with a new assembly (cost unknown)
and replacing the wing. our mech estimates (roughly) the job will take
about 24 hrs of labor and cost, with parts, around 2 AMUs. It's not really
a safety issue as the structure only supports and reinforces the wing walk
-- it is not part of the primary wing structure. But left unrepaired the
outer skin could crack, resulting in a much bigger repair job. Our shop has
never done this job before but one of the assistant A&Ps has, and the
estimate is largely based upon his knowledge. Have any of you other
PA-28/PA-32 owners had this problem?

The rest of the identified maintenance items are the usual collection of
individually minor items -- a seal here, a gasket there -- but of course
collectively they typically add up to about 1 AMU.

Glad this is going to be split 3 ways!


-Elliott Drucker

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> Glad this is going to be split 3 ways!

I empathize with your pain.

Annuals on older aircraft seem to be one big craps game where we owners
hope, at best, to walk away from the table only one AMU down. Rarely does
that appear to happen.

--
Peter

[soxinbox]

I had leaks in the hydraulic pack of my Arrow IV when I bought it. I have an
excellent A&P that suggested that it might only be the seals, and you can
replace the seals for far less than the cost you mentioned.

Do you have electric trim, and if so how is it working. Mine works
intermittently. The clutch always catches, but the motor sometimes doesn't
have enough power to move the trim. I was wondering if this was typical for
the Arrow IV.

The wing walk area on my plane gives just a little, but I notice it. I step
lightly, and hope for the best. 2 AMUs seems high, but what do I know?

> wrote in message
news:ex1kg.13606$OL2.9653@trnddc06...
> Our 1979 Arrow IV is in the shop for its annual inspection. As usual, the
> inspection itself went smoothly, but it uncovered some maintenance items
> that will run into several AMUs. Here are the top three uglies:
>
> 1) The inspection part of Piper Service Bulletin 1161 resulted in
> identification of cracks in both affected wing ribs. That's the bad news.
> The good news is that the cracks are in locations that will allow the use
> of
> the Piper repair kits, which Piper stocks. Jack Allison has posted on
> this
> NG his horror story of replacing the ribs when the cracks precluded use of
> the repair kits, so in a way we feel lucky. Cost estimate for the SB
> compliance with the repair kits is about 1.3 AMU, including parts and the
> initial inspection.
>
> 2) The hydraulic power pack has to be replaced or overhauled. We can't
> feel
> too bad about this one because it's the original (1979) unit. 27 years is
> a
> more than reasonable service life. A rebuilt replacement goes for 0.8
> AMU,
> which is about the cost of overhauling ours. We will do a swap in order
> to
> avoid downtime for an overhaul.
>
> 3) The biggie! The support structure under the wing walk is cracked in
> several places and needs to be replaced. This is apparent from a slight
> "oilcanning" of the wing skin in the wing walk area when we step on it.
> Repair will necessitate removing the right wing, a bunch of drilling to
> remove the old structure, replacing it with a new assembly (cost unknown)
> and replacing the wing. our mech estimates (roughly) the job will take
> about 24 hrs of labor and cost, with parts, around 2 AMUs. It's not
> really
> a safety issue as the structure only supports and reinforces the wing walk
> -- it is not part of the primary wing structure. But left unrepaired the
> outer skin could crack, resulting in a much bigger repair job. Our shop
> has
> never done this job before but one of the assistant A&Ps has, and the
> estimate is largely based upon his knowledge. Have any of you other
> PA-28/PA-32 owners had this problem?
>
> The rest of the identified maintenance items are the usual collection of
> individually minor items -- a seal here, a gasket there -- but of course
> collectively they typically add up to about 1 AMU.
>
> Glad this is going to be split 3 ways!
>
>
> -Elliott Drucker

[Jon Kraus]

The first annual we had on our '79 "J" model Mooney (Please no flames
about what an annual is or isn't) was a little over 9 AMU's... This year
was a little less than 5 AMU's. We felt lucky... Next year we'll shoot
for 2.5...

The biggie for us this year was a 1.9 AMU fuel servo replacement. I must
say that 43H runs noticably better with the new servo... Other than that
we were pretty squawk free... The thing that I noticed is that a bunch
of little squawks can run into an AMU or two quickly...

Sorry to hear about your pain...

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ UMP

Peter R. wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Glad this is going to be split 3 ways!
>
>
> I empathize with your pain.
>
> Annuals on older aircraft seem to be one big craps game where we owners
> hope, at best, to walk away from the table only one AMU down. Rarely does
> that appear to happen.
>

[john smith]

In article >,
"soxinbox" > wrote:

> Do you have electric trim, and if so how is it working. Mine works
> intermittently. The clutch always catches, but the motor sometimes doesn't
> have enough power to move the trim. I was wondering if this was typical for
> the Arrow IV.

I never use the electric trim on any airplane I fly.
I like to feel the resistance increase or decrease as I set it to the
correct spot.
The autopilot uses the electric trim, so checking it is part of each
preflight.

[john smith]

In article <ex1kg.13606$OL2.9653@trnddc06>,
wrote:

> Repair will necessitate removing the right wing, a bunch of drilling to
> remove the old structure, replacing it with a new assembly (cost unknown)
> and replacing the wing.

Is the Arrow wing one piece (like a Mooney) or two (like an RV)?

[Jay Honeck]

> 3) The biggie! The support structure under the wing walk is cracked in
> several places and needs to be replaced. This is apparent from a slight
> "oilcanning" of the wing skin in the wing walk area when we step on it.
> Repair will necessitate removing the right wing, a bunch of drilling to
> remove the old structure, replacing it with a new assembly (cost unknown)
> and replacing the wing. our mech estimates (roughly) the job will take
> about 24 hrs of labor and cost, with parts, around 2 AMUs. It's not
> really
> a safety issue as the structure only supports and reinforces the wing walk
> -- it is not part of the primary wing structure. But left unrepaired the
> outer skin could crack, resulting in a much bigger repair job. Our shop
> has
> never done this job before but one of the assistant A&Ps has, and the
> estimate is largely based upon his knowledge. Have any of you other
> PA-28/PA-32 owners had this problem?

This problem has been discussed extensively in the Cherokee Chat, on the
Cherokee Pilots Association website. There are literally dozens of guys
there who have been down this road, and can (and will) answer any of your
questions.

In fact, tomorrow we're heading to their three-day convention, which is
this coming weekend. It is held annually at Tan-Tar-A resort, in Osage
Beach, MO. This year's keynote speaker is none other than Phil Boyer, AOPA
president.

It's a great organization. If you want to know ANYTHING about Cherokees, I
recommend joining this group.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On 14-Jun-2006, "soxinbox" > wrote:

> Do you have electric trim, and if so how is it working. Mine works
> intermittently. The clutch always catches, but the motor sometimes doesn't
> have enough power to move the trim. I was wondering if this was typical
> for the Arrow IV.


Yes, our has electric trim. I use it all the time, and it works fine. Once
while flying in extremely cold air (-29 C as I recall) it got very slow, but
all of the controls were feeling quite stiff that day. Our AP is only
single axis, so the electric trim is only engaged by the pilot.

-Elliott Drucker

[[email protected]]

On 14-Jun-2006, john smith > wrote:

> Is the Arrow wing one piece (like a Mooney) or two (like an RV)?


On PA-28 airplanes, including the Arrow, the wing spar sections bolt onto
the fuselage carry-through section. Apparently, removing a wing is not that
big a deal. I presume there must be a hard point under the fuselage where
the weight of the plane can be supported while the wing is removed, since
the main gear mount on the wing, or else it might be necessary to use slings
from an overhead.

-Elliott Drucker

[tom418]

I had to replace the hydraulic power unit in my 1972 Seneca in 1991. It had
4,000 hrs at the time. Cost was ~ $900 U.S.
> wrote in message
news:ex1kg.13606$OL2.9653@trnddc06...
> Our 1979 Arrow IV is in the shop for its annual inspection. As usual, the
> inspection itself went smoothly, but it uncovered some maintenance items
> that will run into several AMUs. Here are the top three uglies:
>
> 1) The inspection part of Piper Service Bulletin 1161 resulted in
> identification of cracks in both affected wing ribs. That's the bad news.
> The good news is that the cracks are in locations that will allow the use
of
> the Piper repair kits, which Piper stocks. Jack Allison has posted on
this
> NG his horror story of replacing the ribs when the cracks precluded use of
> the repair kits, so in a way we feel lucky. Cost estimate for the SB
> compliance with the repair kits is about 1.3 AMU, including parts and the
> initial inspection.
>
> 2) The hydraulic power pack has to be replaced or overhauled. We can't
feel
> too bad about this one because it's the original (1979) unit. 27 years is
a
> more than reasonable service life. A rebuilt replacement goes for 0.8
AMU,
> which is about the cost of overhauling ours. We will do a swap in order
to
> avoid downtime for an overhaul.
>
> 3) The biggie! The support structure under the wing walk is cracked in
> several places and needs to be replaced. This is apparent from a slight
> "oilcanning" of the wing skin in the wing walk area when we step on it.
> Repair will necessitate removing the right wing, a bunch of drilling to
> remove the old structure, replacing it with a new assembly (cost unknown)
> and replacing the wing. our mech estimates (roughly) the job will take
> about 24 hrs of labor and cost, with parts, around 2 AMUs. It's not
really
> a safety issue as the structure only supports and reinforces the wing walk
> -- it is not part of the primary wing structure. But left unrepaired the
> outer skin could crack, resulting in a much bigger repair job. Our shop
has
> never done this job before but one of the assistant A&Ps has, and the
> estimate is largely based upon his knowledge. Have any of you other
> PA-28/PA-32 owners had this problem?
>
> The rest of the identified maintenance items are the usual collection of
> individually minor items -- a seal here, a gasket there -- but of course
> collectively they typically add up to about 1 AMU.
>
> Glad this is going to be split 3 ways!
>
>
> -Elliott Drucker

[Otis Winslow]

wrote:
> Our 1979 Arrow IV is in the shop for its annual inspection. As usual, the
> inspection itself went smoothly, but it uncovered some maintenance items
> that will run into several AMUs.

Wait till SBs become mandatory by regulation .. which is in the works.
It's going to cost $1000 plus per hour to operate these old planes. And
the value of them is going straight in the toilet.

[Denny]

There is always a Van's RV...

denny


>
> Wait till SBs become mandatory by regulation .. which is in the works.
> It's going to cost $1000 plus per hour to operate these old planes. And
> the value of them is going straight in the toilet.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 03:29:58 GMT,
wrote:

>
>On 14-Jun-2006, john smith > wrote:
>
>> Is the Arrow wing one piece (like a Mooney) or two (like an RV)?
>
>
>On PA-28 airplanes, including the Arrow, the wing spar sections bolt onto
>the fuselage carry-through section. Apparently, removing a wing is not that
>big a deal. I presume there must be a hard point under the fuselage where
>the weight of the plane can be supported while the wing is removed, since
>the main gear mount on the wing, or else it might be necessary to use slings
>from an overhead.
>
>-Elliott Drucker

we built a wooden cradle/cart that supported the fuselage skin at the
beefy sections where it was secured to fuselage formers/other major
structure. had one for PA28's and another for PA32's.

jacked up the whole ship and rolled the cradle under it, lowered it
gently onto the cradle. used wing jacks to support the wings, had to
leave one under the heavy side if you were only removing one.

it's not a huge deal, but getting the wing bolts out/in can suck at
times.

cradles were used to hold the interiors yanked out of the other birds
when they were doing freight duty.

luckily, they spent more time with seats on 'em than fuselages...

TC

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:43:01 -0500, Otis Winslow
> wrote:

wrote:

snip

>Wait till SBs become mandatory by regulation .. which is in the works.

snip

this is just plain incorrect.

just read today that AOPA (or some other alphabet) is climbing onto
the soapbox to fight this non-issue.

one more time-the recent ruling states that if you are overhauling
an engine in accordance with an approved overhaul manual that
explicitly states that service bulletins are mandatory, you must
comply with the service bulletins.

nothing new, just the first ruling to that effect.

there is a world of difference between this ruling and the blanket
statement that all manufacturer SB's will "become mandatory" by
regulation.

TC

[Jim Burns]

I think you're dead on TC, and many people have missed this when reading the
ruling. In that particular case it was the overhaul manual that made the
SB's mandatory. There was literally no way to comply with the accepted
overhaul manual without complying with the SB's. The SB's became PART of
the overhaul manual. In all practical purposes "updates" to the manual.

Jim
(waking up each morning to the sounds of PT-6's and R-1340's... summer is
officially here)

[joe]

Actually, You're Both incorrect... The only way a manufacturers SB
becomes MANDATORY for a part 91operator is thru an AD note or if it is
referenced in the TCDS. Just because Lycoming puts that statement in
the manual does not make it mandatory....
Joe


Jim Burns wrote:
> I think you're dead on TC, and many people have missed this when reading the
> ruling. In that particular case it was the overhaul manual that made the
> SB's mandatory. There was literally no way to comply with the accepted
> overhaul manual without complying with the SB's. The SB's became PART of
> the overhaul manual. In all practical purposes "updates" to the manual.
>
> Jim
> (waking up each morning to the sounds of PT-6's and R-1340's... summer is
> officially here)

[[email protected]]

On 15-Jun-2006, Otis Winslow > wrote:

> Wait till SBs become mandatory by regulation .. which is in the works.
> It's going to cost $1000 plus per hour to operate these old planes. And
> the value of them is going straight in the toilet.


Some SBs become mandatory because of a subsequently issued AD, but by
themselves they are, from a legal standpoint, voluntary. That said, my
feeling is that SBs generally address serious issues that soul be dealt with
by careful pilots/owners.

In the 10 years I have co-owned our Arrow IV, the various Piper- and
Lycoming-issued SBs affecting our plane have had quite modest cost
implications. Unfortunately, the SB dealing with cracked wing ribs caught
us -- not because of the cost of the inspection, which took about 2 hours of
A&P labor (if done at the time of an annual), but because it revealed some
cracks. The cracks make the airplane un-airworthy, SB or no SB. So in
effect, the big cost is not in complying with the SB, but rather in
repairing the damage that performing the SB uncovered.

Yes, older airplanes generally have more maintenance issues. Things wear
out. But properly maintained, their values generally, on average, have more
than kept pace with inflation. Consider, for example, Bonanzas from the
'70s and '80s. They require lots of expensive maintenance but their values
keep climbing, or at least hold firm, year after year.

-Elliott Drucker

[Jack Allison]

wrote:

> 1) The inspection part of Piper Service Bulletin 1161 resulted in
> identification of cracks in both affected wing ribs. That's the bad news.
> The good news is that the cracks are in locations that will allow the use of
> the Piper repair kits, which Piper stocks. Jack Allison has posted on this
> NG his horror story of replacing the ribs when the cracks precluded use of
> the repair kits,

Misery does love company. Maybe when it's all said and done, our final
costs will be pretty close. I hope yours is less though. Glad you
could go the SB route vs. rib replacement. 1.3 AMUs is much better than
just north of 5 AMUs.

Sure can't complain about that kind of service life on the hydraulic
power pack...and for less than an AMU. That's just $29.63/year. Such a
deal. :-)

>
> 3) The biggie!

Ouch! I hate it when there's a biggie found at annual time (and I've
only been through one).

> never done this job before but one of the assistant A&Ps has, and the
> estimate is largely based upon his knowledge. Have any of you other
> PA-28/PA-32 owners had this problem?

As JayH said, check into CPA. I've read a few things about the repairs
but don't recall costs involved.


> Glad this is going to be split 3 ways!

Yes! That divide by three things sure does help make it easier to
swallow, eh?


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-Instrument Airplane
Arrow N2104T

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Jim Burns]

Then I would argue that the term "overhaul" could not be used to describe or
certify the work done on the engine, no matter if part 91 or part 135. The
mechanic certified that the engine had been overhauled according to the
approved overhaul manual. "Overhaul" requires specific compliance with the
approved overhaul manual, if that manual states that in addition to the
current manual, all SBs be complied with, any other action would negate the
official definition of "overhaul". This is not saying that the engine could
have been legally repaired, rebuilt, fixed, or use any other word you want,
but it was not overhauled as the mechanic had certified.
Jim


"joe" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Actually, You're Both incorrect... The only way a manufacturers SB
> becomes MANDATORY for a part 91operator is thru an AD note or if it is
> referenced in the TCDS. Just because Lycoming puts that statement in
> the manual does not make it mandatory....
> Joe
>
>
> Jim Burns wrote:
> > I think you're dead on TC, and many people have missed this when reading
the
> > ruling. In that particular case it was the overhaul manual that made
the
> > SB's mandatory. There was literally no way to comply with the accepted
> > overhaul manual without complying with the SB's. The SB's became PART
of
> > the overhaul manual. In all practical purposes "updates" to the manual.
> >
> > Jim
> > (waking up each morning to the sounds of PT-6's and R-1340's... summer
is
> > officially here)
>

[tom418]

"Some SBs become mandatory because of a subsequently issued AD, "...

Tell me about it. Years ago, there was a service bulletin on the Seneca for
the landing gear trunions. Some operators were reporting cracks. The S.B.
beacame an A.D. I had just over 2000 hours on the trunions, and they had to
be replaced. (They had already been magnafluxed several times, with no
cracks found).
$5000 spent fixing that one.
> wrote in message
news:tcnkg.9854$db5.4007@trnddc03...
>
> On 15-Jun-2006, Otis Winslow > wrote:
>
> > Wait till SBs become mandatory by regulation .. which is in the works.
> > It's going to cost $1000 plus per hour to operate these old planes. And
> > the value of them is going straight in the toilet.
>
>
> Some SBs become mandatory because of a subsequently issued AD, but by
> themselves they are, from a legal standpoint, voluntary. That said, my
> feeling is that SBs generally address serious issues that soul be dealt
with
> by careful pilots/owners.
>
> In the 10 years I have co-owned our Arrow IV, the various Piper- and
> Lycoming-issued SBs affecting our plane have had quite modest cost
> implications. Unfortunately, the SB dealing with cracked wing ribs caught
> us -- not because of the cost of the inspection, which took about 2 hours
of
> A&P labor (if done at the time of an annual), but because it revealed some
> cracks. The cracks make the airplane un-airworthy, SB or no SB. So in
> effect, the big cost is not in complying with the SB, but rather in
> repairing the damage that performing the SB uncovered.
>
> Yes, older airplanes generally have more maintenance issues. Things wear
> out. But properly maintained, their values generally, on average, have
more
> than kept pace with inflation. Consider, for example, Bonanzas from the
> '70s and '80s. They require lots of expensive maintenance but their
values
> keep climbing, or at least hold firm, year after year.
>
> -Elliott Drucker