banner
banner

19 Apr 2024, 08:33 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Aviation Fabricators (Top Banner)



Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Engineers: how will the Cirrus become unairworthy?
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 06:29 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/13/10
Posts: 20120
Post Likes: +23597
Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
Aircraft: Prior C310,BE33,SR22
Username Protected wrote:
Is there any indication that any Cirrus will ever hit 12,000 hours? Is there any operator that is using them for workhorse service where they are still putting hundreds of hours per year on 15 year old airframes?



I don't know.

Piper PA38 Tomahawk has an 11,000hr life limit on the wings and a number of them have timed out and some have been fitted with younger wings to keep flying.

On the Cirrus, that isn't possible. The airframe itself times out and that's the end.

Larry, in the Cirrus article I linked above, they comment about the Cessna/Columbia airframe:

Cessna (formerly Columbia) 350/400 have a lifetime of over 25,000 hours but with an extensive (bonded seams, checks for de-lamination, thirty wing bolt replacement, flight control removals, etc.) airframe inspection every 3,000 hours.

Do you know what all is involved there? What’s the cost? It sounds expensive.
_________________
Arlen
Get your motor runnin'
Head out on the highway
- Mars Bonfire


Top

 Post subject: Re: Engineers: how will the Cirrus become unairworthy?
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 09:24 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 10/05/11
Posts: 9577
Post Likes: +6448
Company: Power/mation
Location: Milwaukee, WI (KMKE)
Aircraft: 1963 Debonair B33
I recall this life limit stuff being a "somewhat recent" Part 23 requirement.

The mfr is required to have a life limit, therefore they make an educated guess. When the life limit is reached, should the mfr care to spend the money amd jump thru the hoops, they can extend it. If the mfr chooses not to, perfectly serviceable "parts" are swapped out for younger parts.

I believe (hope) this is being addressed in the Part 23 rewrite.

I have near zero actual knowledge of this; just passing interest. I hope someone who knows affirms or corrects what I've written.

_________________
Be Nice


Top

 Post subject: Re: Engineers: how will the Cirrus become unairworthy?
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 09:32 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/04/11
Posts: 452
Post Likes: +98
Location: Covington, GA
Aircraft: 421C, 58
I own one of the highest time SR22’s in the fleet, probably. It’s a 2007 G3 with 5900 hours. It was previously used on a 135. I would say the airframes are holding up pretty well.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Engineers: how will the Cirrus become unairworthy?
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 09:33 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12799
Post Likes: +5226
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Username Protected wrote:
Who has the business case to put 450 hours per year on a 12 year old $150k airplane.

Rental.

Regular commuter.

Heavy private user.

Charter.

Mike C.


I understand those are the sort of use cases that rack up thousands of hours on an airframe. I don't see that applying to the cirrus in the real world.

Rental - high volume rentals are low cost leaders 152, 172, BE76. The Cirrus doesn't have a business case there.

Charter - setting aside does anyone (outside alaska and similar non-Cirrus friendly environments) operate a high volume SE piston charter, Cirrus is again not the cost or capability leader. The payload/space penalty of the chute would be a major disadvantage here.

Regular Commuter / High Volume Private user - this is where it might happen. There are certainly people who have put 500 hours/year on a Cirrus. But these are people who 1) deduct their costs 2) spend highly on opex (like $40k/year in fuel) and 3) value reliability and lack of downtime. They are not flying the same airframe for 20 years. They're buying a new one every 5.

And even if someone was willing to do that, given the airframe limit, it would make more sense to run the airplane to 8K or so, sell and buy one with 4k.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Engineers: how will the Cirrus become unairworthy?
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 09:40 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/04/11
Posts: 452
Post Likes: +98
Location: Covington, GA
Aircraft: 421C, 58
To support your thoughts, the 135 operator that I purchased mine from went bankrupt.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Engineers: how will the Cirrus become unairworthy?
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 11:30 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/18/12
Posts: 787
Post Likes: +399
Location: Europe
Aircraft: Aerostar 600A
Username Protected wrote:
Piper PA38 Tomahawk has an 11,000hr life limit on the wings and a number of them have timed out and some have been fitted with younger wings to keep flying.

On the Cirrus, that isn't possible. The airframe itself times out and that's the end.
Larry, in the Cirrus article I linked above, they comment about the Cessna/Columbia airframe:

Cessna (formerly Columbia) 350/400 have a lifetime of over 25,000 hours but with an extensive (bonded seams, checks for de-lamination, thirty wing bolt replacement, flight control removals, etc.) airframe inspection every 3,000 hours.

Do you know what all is involved there? What’s the cost? It sounds expensive.


I own a 2003 Columbia and I'm re-building a wrecked 2010 Corvalis 400: These planes are ROCK SOLID !

My Corvalis 400 had a |botched] landing incident that ripped off front nose wheel and the right main. The fuselage did'nt have a scratch ! The firewall did'nt budge one iota . I've looked at Cirrus wrecks and I can say they do NOT fair as well.

The 3000 hour inspection is not very invasive and changing out the wing bolts is no big deal either, except that there are a bunch of them. I wouldn't expect the 3K hour check to be over 25h labor when done at Annual.

Re the Tomahawk : Funny you mention that : I have a friend that runs a 1 man/plane Flight School and his Tomahawk just hit 11K hours last week. He had another wing lined-up and I was amazed at the utter simplicity of the design: Took 2 of us all of 1 day to swap out the wing with just 2 cherry pickers !

_________________
A&P/IA
P35
Aerostar 600A


Last edited on 10 Feb 2019, 11:35, edited 3 times in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Engineers: how will the Cirrus become unairworthy?
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 11:32 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23622
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Rental - high volume rentals are low cost leaders 152, 172, BE76. The Cirrus doesn't have a business case there.

Quite a few SR22s are for rent.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sr22+rent

Quote:
Charter - setting aside does anyone (outside alaska and similar non-Cirrus friendly environments) operate a high volume SE piston charter, Cirrus is again not the cost or capability leader.

Quite a few SR22s for charter.

http://aircharterguide.com/AircraftSear ... wMore=true

You've subtly changed the question to talk about being the leading rental or charter aircraft which the SR22 isn't, but it does do that duty and that's where you will see 450 hours/year type service.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Engineers: how will the Cirrus become unairworthy?
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 14:04 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12799
Post Likes: +5226
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
I'm not trying to start a "what is the best rental/charter" airplane question.

The question is "does any Cirrus fulfill the sort of workhorse fly a bunch of hours every day and make it's owner a profit so that even at 20 years old and clapped out and 8000 hours, somebody still hangs a new engine on it and flies another 2000 hours in 5 years then hangs another new engine on it because it can be reliably sold til the day it drops dead."

172 - yes. 206 - yes. Navajo - yes. (granted none have life limits, but people would still do the above if they did).

It's not that the Cirrus is fundamentally unsuited to any for-hire work. It's that it's not good enough at it to get flogged to 12,000 hours in less than a half century.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Engineers: how will the Cirrus become unairworthy?
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 14:32 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23622
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
It's not that the Cirrus is fundamentally unsuited to any for-hire work. It's that it's not good enough at it to get flogged to 12,000 hours in less than a half century.

There will definitely be SRs that reach 12,000 hours before 50 years in service.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Engineers: how will the Cirrus become unairworthy?
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 15:08 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/29/13
Posts: 706
Post Likes: +476
Aircraft: C177RG, ATOS-VR
Username Protected wrote:
But that’s the issue - maintaining present rate of usage. Who has the business case to put 450 hours per year on a 12 year old $150k airplane. In 4 years that’s $150k in avgas plus a new engine.


I sold my previous Cardinal to a traffic reporter in Salt Lake City. He was putting 6 hours a day, 5 days a week (3 hours for morning commute and 3 hours for the evening commute). That's about 1,500 a year. He did engine overhauls every 4,000 hours whether it needed it or not.

Vince


Top

 Post subject: Re: Engineers: how will the Cirrus become unairworthy?
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 15:11 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/13/10
Posts: 20120
Post Likes: +23597
Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
Aircraft: Prior C310,BE33,SR22
My opinion:

Just like the overwhelming majority of Bonanzas will never see 12,000 hours, so it will be with the Cirrus. There'll be a few exceptions (as there are in the Bonanza fleet), but overall that's no big deal when looking at the big picture of aviation.

_________________
Arlen
Get your motor runnin'
Head out on the highway
- Mars Bonfire


Top

 Post subject: Re: Engineers: how will the Cirrus become unairworthy?
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 15:17 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3353
Post Likes: +1962
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
Username Protected wrote:
Larry, in the Cirrus article I linked above, they comment about the Cessna/Columbia airframe:

Cessna (formerly Columbia) 350/400 have a lifetime of over 25,000 hours but with an extensive (bonded seams, checks for de-lamination, thirty wing bolt replacement, flight control removals, etc.) airframe inspection every 3,000 hours.

Do you know what all is involved there? What’s the cost? It sounds expensive.



I have the maintenance manual, could quote all the mandatory items from the limitations section. It doesn't look too bad actually. However, I don't know of a single example hitting 3000 hours and needing all this done. It was discussed at the last CAART event I was at, but even Van Bortels hasn't actually done this yet or seen an airplane with that many hours on it.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Engineers: how will the Cirrus become unairworthy?
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 15:27 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12799
Post Likes: +5226
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Username Protected wrote:
But that’s the issue - maintaining present rate of usage. Who has the business case to put 450 hours per year on a 12 year old $150k airplane. In 4 years that’s $150k in avgas plus a new engine.


I sold my previous Cardinal to a traffic reporter in Salt Lake City. He was putting 6 hours a day, 5 days a week (3 hours for morning commute and 3 hours for the evening commute). That's about 1,500 a year. He did engine overhauls every 4,000 hours whether it needed it or not.

Vince



Low wing planes are rarely used for traffic or pipeline patrol

Top

 Post subject: Re: Engineers: how will the Cirrus become unairworthy?
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 15:37 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12799
Post Likes: +5226
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Username Protected wrote:
It's not that the Cirrus is fundamentally unsuited to any for-hire work. It's that it's not good enough at it to get flogged to 12,000 hours in less than a half century.

There will definitely be SRs that reach 12,000 hours before 50 years in service.

Mike C.


This could make an interesting bet. If I win, you have to post a picture of yourself in a tesla hat and SF50 t-shirt holding an iPhone and a Starbucks. I'll give you until Dec 31, 2058!

Top

 Post subject: Re: Engineers: how will the Cirrus become unairworthy?
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 16:29 
Offline




User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 30697
Post Likes: +10717
Location: Minneapolis, MN (KFCM)
Aircraft: 1970 Baron B55
Username Protected wrote:
My question was more along the lines of "when a short occurs, is the result the same in either type of airframe?"

Alot of chafed wire short circuits occur when an improperly supported wire chafes against the airframe, when that occurs on an aluminum airplane sparks/smoke/fire occur, on a composite airframe that doesn't happen. Composite is not conductive.

But, there are many more wires in a composite airplane, because the airframe is not a ground, so every component has a ground wire returning the current to a ground buss.

There are other differences. Since composite airframes dictate a wired return path, and in most cases that return wire will run alongside the power lead, chaffing through both wires is a significant possibility and once that happens the result could easily become an undetected overheating of a structural member when the two conductors touch. More often than not I'd expect the overcurrent protection (e.g. circuit breaker) to open before signifiicant damage occurs. But given the lighter forces involved with the two wire short (vs a single wire shorting to airframe ground) such overheating seems more likely in the composite/two wire case since that lighter contact will have higher resistance.
_________________
-lance

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.puremedical-85x200.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.dbm.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.