BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 09:03

Username Protected wrote:

The PA-32 and 34 have additional structure (caps, webs, angles) on the main spar attachment area. The lower outboard bolt holes are also SMALLER; 5/16 instead of 3/8".
The bolts are not difficult to access or remove (not any more than the aft flap rollers on a Bonanza

).

So smaller holes equates to more structure correct?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 09:25

The AD states the spar can be replaced in 32 hours. Seem a little optimistic? I wonder what the access is for bucking rivets?

Robert

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 09:54

I talk about it in this thread, with pictures.

viewtopic.php?f=41&t=160335&p=2277008#p2277008

Hear are pictures of a PA-28R-180 wing

Attachment:

PA-28R-180 wing spar1.JPG

Attachment:

PA-28R-180 wing spar2.JPG

Attachment:

PA-28R-180 wing spar3.JPG

Here are the Saratoga spar pics

Attachment:

PA-32R-301T wing1.JPG

Attachment:

PA-32R-301T wing3.JPG

Attachment:

PA-32R-301T wing4.JPG

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 12:30

Del,

What is the difference between the PA32 and 32R wing attach? From a quick look on the parts book they both appear to be similar in design and use 3/8 bolts. Why do you suppose the R-model was omitted?

Jeff

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 12:41

The IPC views are difficult (impossible) to see the difference, but I suspect the model effectivity and serial number range may have something to do with that massive doubler on the bottom cap. See picture PA-32R-301T wing3. Hard to see in the picture because the primer color change, but that doubler extends from the inboard end of the lower spar cap, bridges across the problem area, and on outboard where it widens to distribute the load. Using the smaller bolts at the problem area also allows the next 2 bolts inboard to share the shear load.
I expect Donald can explain this better with his engineering vocabulary.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 12:55

Does anyone know why the PA28-236 Dakota isn’t included in the list?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 13:44

Username Protected wrote:

Does anyone know why the PA28-236 Dakota isn’t included in the list?

I do not, but I do see the 236 spar assembly PN# is different than the other PA-28 models.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Dec 2018, 17:03

Did all the Saratoga line of aircraft come with internal corrosion proofing treatment throughout the fuselage?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Dec 2018, 17:21

Username Protected wrote:

Did all the Saratoga line of aircraft come with internal corrosion proofing treatment throughout the fuselage?

Piper was actually the first of the big 3 to begin the transition to internal corrosion resistant primer as "standard equipment" rather than an option. To my knowledge, this is true beginning in the late '60s thru early '70s. You can see this transition most prominent in the Comanche line. Beech and Cessna both seemed to have a hodgepodge mix of epoxy and zinc chromate primed, and bare alclad up thru the early '80s. I figure they continued to use bare parts until inventory was exhausted. Beech appears to have slowly transitioned to complete epoxy primer by the end of that decade. All Cessna "re-starts" (1996 and on) have epoxy primer.

PA28/32 Proposed Wing Spar AD