Forum

Notifications
Clear all

This Forum is a place for Piper Comanche pilots to communicate and discuss technical issues

If you join or reset a password, please check your Spam Email box for emails from Admin at ComancheTechTalk.com

Please put your questions on the forum as well so everyone can read and respond. Someone else might be having similar questions.

All questions or topics on the Forums automatically get sent to the Tech team as well.

Horn AD

1 Posts
1 Users
0 Reactions
299 Views
Admin
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 1162
Topic starter  

 

Horn AD

Postby David Pyle » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:47 pm

What is the current prospect for the AD following Piper SB 1189? Opinion would be appreciated.

 

Initial timing and required compliance has sellers and buyers hanging fire.

713 464 6717
dap8@comcast.net
David Pyle
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 10:33 pm
Location: Houston
  •  

 

 

Re: Horn AD

Postby Chief » Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:49 pm

Hard to have an AD without certified kits to fix!
User avatar
Chief
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:01 pm
Location: K9A4

 

 

Re: Horn AD

Postby David Pyle » Sat Jan 15, 2011 12:19 am

Chief,

 

There is later information about the horn situation in the Jan. 2011 Comanche FLYER.

713 464 6717
dap8@comcast.net
David Pyle
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 10:33 pm
Location: Houston
  •  

 

 

Re: Horn AD

Postby Chief » Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:48 pm

Hey David,

 

I read it. Thanks

User avatar
Chief
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:01 pm
Location: K9A4

 

 

Re: Horn AD

Postby tomburke1 » Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:25 pm

Hi David. This might be a bit off point, but the Aussie Horn is available and it eliminates the SB, and if the SB becomes an AD it eliminates that as well. I have ordered mine already. I will be installinbg it after my trip to Australia in April.
tomburke1
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 2:30 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale fl

 

 

Re: Horn AD

Postby Chief » Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:11 pm

Hey Tom,

 

You may want to re-read the SB, "new horn on new torque tube" is what suffices. Someone other than me would have to tell you if Aussie Horn is recognized by FAA, not sure on that, but the SB clearly states, "new Piper horn on new torque tube".

But, I will say, an Aussie Horn is better than a non-compiance horn and a plane flying is more fun than one sitting!!!!

User avatar
Chief
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:01 pm
Location: K9A4

 

 

Re: Horn AD

Postby tomburke1 » Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:44 pm

I might be wrong in my interpretation, but I feelm that if you do not have the Piper Horn in your aircraft no part of the SB is relevant, as the SB refers to the Piper part. Anyone else have a differing opinion?
tomburke1
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 2:30 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale fl

 

 

Re: Horn AD

Postby Chief » Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:59 am

unless it becomes an AD, then you end up doing it again.

 

it is very frustrating for the FAA to issues SB without OEM support, that I am sure we can all agree on!

User avatar
Chief
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:01 pm
Location: K9A4

 

 

Re: Horn AD

Postby tomburke1 » Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:49 am

Would the proposed AD be relevant if the Piper part was not in the aircraft? That is the question. In my opinion it would not.
An example was, as I remember, the AD on the Lycoming bolt that secured something in the accessory case. If you had a Superior part or an ECI part in your engine it was not applicable.
tomburke1
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 2:30 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale fl

 

 

Re: Horn AD

Postby Chief » Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:47 pm

Tom,
I sent an email to the FAA to clarify their position on all this. Here is what they said in regards to this statement on their Airworthiness Concern Sheet on the front page of this website (NIAR Survey). Here is what it says......."Piper has issued SB 1189 to replace and /or repetitively inspect the horns on all single (PA-24) and twin (PA-30, PA-39) Comanches. Stabilator torque tubes must be replaced when a new Piper horn is installed."

 

It clearly states a new horn on a new tube.

Here is what the FAA said in summary today after I contacted them,
The SB says that the balance arm must be replaced. It does not currently state the torque tube must be replaced. However, after a fit check of the SB, Piper is aware that practically the torque tube will also have to be replaced. It would also make economic sense because of the common steps involved in the inspections and replacements for both.

Piper was working on some SB revisions (1189 on the horn and 1160 on the torque tube) and re-kitting of parts. The FAA rep. just wanted to put that info out there even though it's not currently in the SBs.

Hope that clarifies to some degree

By the way, Dave Fitzgerald and Hans are very involved with the FAA on this, so we should all be thankful for their hard work!!!

Let's hope the Aussie Horn is FAA-approved or Piper starts making some Torque Tubes and Horns, quickly!!!!!!!!!!!!!

User avatar
Chief
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:01 pm
Location: K9A4

 

 

Re: Horn AD

Postby Zach Grant L1011jock » Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:22 pm

Chief,
Everyone is actually working together on this, Piper reluctantly has relented some of its hard line positions on changing the SB (with the proding of the FAA). Don't go jumping off a bridge just yet. This will probably be the most sensible AD in history when it comes out, due to the amount of attention it has drawn from multiple groups. Parts will be available, but doing anything now as far as speculating what will be the final wording, what applies/doesn't apply, compliance and AMOC, would be irresponsible at best. Lets all be thankful that this is an understood phenominon, and not something that is going to get an overly "enthusiastic" shotgun approach to fixing it.
-Zach
"Keep it above 5 feet and don't do nuthin dumb!"
User avatar
Zach Grant L1011jock
Technical Advisor
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:35 pm
Location: Indianapolis KEYE

 

 

Re: Horn AD

Postby Chief » Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:21 am

10-4, you guys know way more than me. I think we all need to fight for OEM support. It frustrates me as a two year Comanche owner to have so many issues where parts are needed for SB and AD compliance. Parts are hard to find. It is one of the leading reasons our Comanches are losing value. You can put technology in any plane. Any Comanche on the market can have the same technology as the most sophisticated modern plane. Good avionics, good autopilots, backup systems, etc. Just pay the money and a good Avionics shop you are good to go. We all love and appreciate the Lycoming 540 engines for their performance and reliablity, we all love the usable payload of a fully fueled Comanche and we all love it's speed and flying characteristics. BUT, BUT, to hear fellow Comanches pilots struggle to find landing gear motors, Torque Tubes, Horns, landing gear parts, simple interior parts, etc, it saddens and disappoints me how our OEM (Piper) and our goverance body (FAA) have not managed such issues with the fleets best interest at heart. It is really hard to understand. At the end of the day, it devalues our planes. Talk to A&P about Commanders, Grunmams and maybe someday Mooneys. They sit in hangars, unable to find parts.

 

I'll be optimistics and wait to see how this all works in regards to this latest curve ball. A curve ball that seems to be be brought on by improper maintenance more than true stress and flight fatigue.
I'll tell you this, I am extremely proud of ICS, its solidarity, leadership and depth of pilots, such as yourself that fight to keep our Comanches' flying.

A big thank you!!!! Keep it up!!

User avatar
Chief
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:01 pm
Location: K9A4

 

 

Re: Horn AD

Postby tomburke1 » Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:50 pm

The key to this entire discussion is in the following sentence. " Stabilator torque tubes must be replaced when a new Piper horn is installed." Can anyone tell me what it is?

 

Hint: It has to do with the word, Piper.

Enough suspense,,,

It says IF a new PIPER horn is installed the STABILATOR TUBE MUST BE REPLACED. Well, if you have an approved substitute part such as the "Aussie Horn", (which is supposed to be approved fairly soon), then the SB and the future AD does not apply to your aircraft. The Aussie Horn replacement instructions do not have the replacemet of the stabilor tube in it's instructions.

In response to yor statements aout part availability, as a 26 year and over 3000 hours of flight time Comanche owner I find it hard to agree with you. I have not really had many problems acquiring the parts I have needed to keep my plane flying. Many of the parts you quote as being hard to find are around. You just have to put some work into finding them. Throwing your hands up and crying that there are no new gear transmisions around, doesn't help. networking with other owners, calling around to parts yards, looking on Barnstormers.com, etc, are things that get you the parts you need. In the past year I have seen at least 2 advertisements for Hoof Valves on Barnstormer.com. I have seen at least 6 gear transmissions there as well. I purchased a Hoof Valve there for $200.00, and a Dura Transmission that has a yellow tag from a renowned Comanche shop with it for $800.00. Even EBAY has some parts for Comanche. A year or so ago, a Hoof valve sold there for $186.00 as removed.

And, yes I agree with your statement that alot of the problems come from lack of or improper maintenance. If you are saying that the Stabilator Horn problem is caused by this, there I have to disagree. Improper assembly at the factory is the likely problem there.

And , I agree totally and emphaticaly with your statements regarding the Comanche Society. I have yet had a request for help that someone didn't answer me with a solution, or at worst a direction to travel to find a solution.

tomburke1
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 2:30 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale fl

 

 

Re: Horn AD

Postby Zach Grant L1011jock » Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:48 pm

I'll just add a little something here. I recently had an incident happen that shows how well we are actually doing when if comes to parts support. In this case it involved a PA32R Lance, arguably a still in production aircraft (this was a 1976 model, but no one has called it orphaned by Piper). The long story short, it had a failed fuel pressure gauge. A quick call to DMFS got the ball rolling. New replacement gauges were available (I should hope so, only every fuel injected Piper single built from 1968 to 1996 has the same gauge) for $307. HOWEVER, the nice man says, it won't work in your plane. Ok, what's the catch? It's a Rochester gauge, not a Stewart Warner like what you have, and you will have to buy a new cluster mount for it to work. Great, how much is that? List price, 847 bucks...but listed as NLA in the parts supply. Great, what to do. Can you guess what the suggested course of action from the Piper dealer was? Get the new gauge, and get a new cluster mount made, and install as owner produced part, or find someone who could maybe overhaul the existing gauge. Being that the airplane was stuck away from base AOG, I didn't like either of those suggestions. I called every scrap yard I knew of, no luck. I called every instrument overhauler that I knew of, no luck, but several including Air Parts of Lockhaven would overhaul it in about 10 days for a reasonable $135. Getting on parts base, I bound 12 parts houses that had the part number listed. Called all of them, no luck, they were all Rochester gauges. The last place I called said they had 9 on the shelf. I asked them to look if one was smaller than the others, and he's said they had one that was smaller by about 3/4 inches and didnt have Rochester printed on it. Great send it!

 

Mind you, this whole story took almost 3 days to actually play out! Maybe it is just me being extra tuned into the Comanche series, but I have NEVER worked so hard to get any Comanche back into the air! I think we actually have benefitted by not being totally reliant on Piper for replacement parts. We as owners and members of the ICS have found multiple new supply chains whenever needed, and we will continue to do so as the need arrises. We may not like the price, or the lead time, but as Tom said, once something is sourced, networking with ICS and other owners will get the word out, good or bad.

Zach

"Keep it above 5 feet and don't do nuthin dumb!"
User avatar
Zach Grant L1011jock
Technical Advisor
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:35 pm
Location: Indianapolis KEYE

 

 

Re: Horn AD

Postby Zach Grant L1011jock » Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:03 pm

Tom,
As to speculating what the AD is going to say, you are doing just that, speculating. As far as talking about the current SB wording, yes, that is how it is worded, and simply, it makes sense as the holes were match drilled, and when replacing the horn, need to be match drilled again. I really don't know how you do that without replacing both if you expect to keep the slop out as intended. Using close tolerance bolts only works when you have close tolerance holes! Call me a pessimist, but, as I applaud the gents from down under for coming up with a solution, I am not convinced it will be without problems, especially in the area of installation with regard to the imperfect and often out of stated tolerance existing Piper parts. In the big airplanes, there is a whole group of engineers in what is called the "interchangeability" department, whose entire lot in life is to figure out what parts will fit what aircraft based on known and sometimes unknown manufacturing or modification differences. Being that so far we have found many different differences between the same airplanes, as they were rolled out of the factory, I am afraid that just replacing the horn, especially with one of a different design no matter how good it is, could lead to further yet unknown issues. The devil you know, is certainly preferable to the devil you don't...

 

Zach

"Keep it above 5 feet and don't do nuthin dumb!"
User avatar
Zach Grant L1011jock
Technical Advisor
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:35 pm
Location: Indianapolis KEYE

Re: Horn AD

Postby tomburke1 » Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:31 pm

Hi Zach. The one thing that appears that you are not addressing is the fact that if you replace the Piper horn with the Aussie horn, the SB is no longer applicable to your aircraft. If the SB is not applicable any longer will any AD that might develope out of it be applicable?
I have talked to Dave Fitzgerald a few times regarding this matter and he seems to be of the opinion that the approval of the Aussie horn by the FAA is imminent. From what I have beeen told , by international agreement , any approval by the Australian authority will be approved by the American FAA.
tomburke1
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 2:30 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale fl

Re: Horn AD

Postby Zach Grant L1011jock » Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:55 pm

Tom,
You are making an assumption that the AD will be based on the SB. At this point that has yet to be determined. ADs may or may not mirror a SB. Just because Piper says to do something in a SB, that may or may not be adopted by an FAA AD in whole or in part. An AD may be more restrictive, less restrictive, or may not be issues at all for a given manufacturers SB. You are correct that the Aussie horn approval is apparently immanent, but that still does not address my concerns that it's use may supply it's own set of future problems, as people will be trying to install it on old torque tubes, and attaching old balance arms. That is simply the issues of installation, long term effects from imperfect installation, or imperfect interchangeability with existing parts may cause other issues. As for the Piper parts, they have a 54 year track record, and a singular known mode of failure. All sides of the possible ramifications of any mod must be examined and weighed. Making any decision without all of the available information is not the smartest move in my opinion. What the FAA is going to mandate is certainly a wildcard, and not one that I am willing to make a decision without knowing.
Zach
"Keep it above 5 feet and don't do nuthin dumb!"
User avatar
Zach Grant L1011jock
Technical Advisor
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:35 pm
Location: Indianapolis KEYE

Re: Horn AD

Postby tomburke1 » Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:07 pm

 
tomburke1
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 2:30 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale fl

Re: Horn AD

Postby Zach Grant L1011jock » Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:39 pm

Tom,
I think your last statement is a bit premature, but I hope you are correct. I believe a new assembly from Piper will be just as permanent a fix, but that is also speculation, and I like the idea that there is less disassembly/assembly required with the Piper kits as to allow for less field induced errors and variables. Remember, the Aussie horn will be nothing but a horn, you supply all the other parts, serviceable or not...and if the AD reads that the assembly must be changed, then all the parts of the assembly must be changed, not just the horn (which you are correct will not be a Piper part number, but I think you see where it could go). I am not betting for or against anyone, but like I said, I will reserve my decision as to the compliance with an AD until I see the AD. The alternative is assuming something not in evidence, and you know what assumptions do...
Zach
"Keep it above 5 feet and don't do nuthin dumb!"
User avatar
Zach Grant L1011jock
Technical Advisor
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:35 pm
Location: Indianapolis KEYE

Re: Horn AD

Postby Chief » Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:54 pm

Hey Tom,
I could definitely learn from your experience. 26 years and 3000 hours is quite an accomplishment in any one plane. It sounds like you have figured out how to keep our Comanches flying. If you don't mind, you'll be the first person I email when I need a part.

On a side note, If you read my email, my frustration is with Piper and the FAA, not ICS, or you, or Webco, or Comanche Gear or any other great supporter of our planes. And although you don't know me, let me assure you, I'll never "throw up my hands and cry", about an airplane or its parts, especially when you have such great support from ICS and many others. I would simply love to see the FAA and Piper do more to require support of our fleet. No more, no less. Strong support from Piper insures the future, keeps value high and keeps our planes safe and predictable for sellers and buyers.

I think Zach is right, it is premature and unwise to speculate, but I'll throw in my unsolicited opinion. If all this turns into an AD, I bet the FAA will take care of two SBs (1160/1189) with one AD. The parts are so dependent on each other and they work together in keeping the plane flying. Not addressing both would be kind of like getting new tires without an alignment. You can do it, but is it the best use of time and money.

I appreciate you and all the others. Thanks

By the way, do you know where I can find a new Torque Tube? I need one.

User avatar
Chief
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:01 pm
Location: K9A4

Re: Horn AD

Postby Ian Thomson » Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:53 am

 
Ian Thomson
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 1:46 pm

Re: Horn AD

Postby Kristin Winter » Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:26 am

My read is that Zach is correct in saying that we will really not know the full effectiveness of the Aussie horn until the FAA comes out with the AD. If I were leading the charge, I would ask the FAA to specifically exempt the Aussie horn and state that installation of it is an acceptable AMOC. Without that, it will be hard to be sure how the applicability will be determined in the field by IA's and FAA inspectors.
Kristin
User avatar
Kristin Winter
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Northern California

Re: Horn AD

Postby Zach Grant L1011jock » Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:38 am

Ian,
No disrespect intended WRT the Aussie Horn Program. My concerns are with what the final AD rule will require. As for your horn being a solution to the absolutely abhorrent requirements of the the Piper SB, it is the best solution, however, when the FAA publishes the final AD rule, that will become the governing document, and at this point it is possible that it will not look anything like the Piper SB. That is why I am expressing a tone of caution. There are many pitfalls possible in the language of an AD, either intended or unintended. Once such would be if the rule read that ASSEMBLY XYZ had to be changed for new. Certainly your horn would not be covered, but the assembly contains all of the other parts that would be, thus causing a possibly extended period of grounding while fighting for an AMOC. There are many other situations that could cause unwanted rework, or expensive down time, but until we know what the final rule says, it is all speculation. I have no doubt as to the quality of your kit, but I do wish to reserve my recommondation of a course of action until all the facts are known, and compliance with the AD is assured by whatever process it stipulates. I hope for all of our sakes that the final rule does not cause any additional financial or material impact for those that have taken action or plan to before the final rule is published, but immagine the consternation if there was a recommondation that ended up making people do something twice...I hope you understand.

Regards,
Zach

"Keep it above 5 feet and don't do nuthin dumb!"
User avatar
Zach Grant L1011jock
Technical Advisor
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:35 pm
Location: Indianapolis KEYE

Re: Horn AD

Postby tomburke1 » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:42 pm

 
tomburke1
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 2:30 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale fl

Re: Horn AD

Postby David Pyle » Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:13 pm

If I am a prospective Comanche buyer should I require the seller to c/w SB 1189 even though it is not compulsory? I believe that the manufacturer issues a SB, sometimes in anticipation of an AD, and/or with FAA encouragement.

Confusion reigns.

713 464 6717
dap8@comcast.net
David Pyle
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 10:33 pm
Location: Houston
  •  

Re: Horn AD

Postby tomburke1 » Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:41 pm

 
tomburke1
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 2:30 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale fl

Re: Horn AD

Postby David Pyle » Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:08 pm

Tom,

I understand the relevance of a SB. However everyone believes that SB 1189 will be an AD.

So in your opinion, and as a Comanche seller, how much would you discount the price of an airplane w/o SB compliance anticipating the AD?

713 464 6717
dap8@comcast.net
David Pyle
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 10:33 pm
Location: Houston
  •  

Re: Horn AD

Postby tomburke1 » Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:25 pm

Tom,

I understand the relevance of a SB. However everyone believes that SB 1189 will be an AD.

So in your opinion, and as a Comanche seller, how much would you discount the price of an airplane w/o SB compliance anticipating the issuance of an AD?

First let me say, that In a sale anything and everything is negotiable.

From what I am seeing the price to comply with the SB is still kind of undecided. I have chosen to buy the Aussie Horn and go that route. I think that the cost of the installation will be about $2000.00 in round figures.

The other way is to use Piper parts and I am told that they are not available right now. So, it would be difficult to put a price on that means of compliance at this time.

To answer your question, as best I can, I feel that if the seller feels that he has priced his aircraft with the non compliance of the SB taken into consideration already, I would think he would be reluctant to discount it further. If his price is not adjusted for the non compliance I would think the $2000.00 estimate to alleviate the SB by using the Aussie Horn would be a good point to start. The decision as to the acceptance of that method would be one that the buyer would have to make.

tomburke1
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 2:30 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale fl

Re: Horn AD

Postby Zach Grant L1011jock » Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:31 am

Just one more thing to think about...how much do you discount for tail weights, aileron nose rib mod, ailieron hinge mod, copper cable mod, battery box mod, high shear rivit mod, tail spar mod, torque tube corrosion resistant bolt mod etc etc....all of these are SBs, some have follow on ADs, but the ADs only require something on condition or a repetitive inspection. There is a difference between airworthy, and maintained/modified to current mod status. Guess what, everyone with an engine overhauled more than 3 years ago does not have all current service bulletins complied with, and certainly any engine over 12 years since OH is deemed timed out by Lyc.....let's all go out and demand we get NEW engines on any used airplane we buy. Come on people. Let's be a little realistic here! Put the speculation panic BS back in the box, and wait and se what will be required.

Zach

"Keep it above 5 feet and don't do nuthin dumb!"
User avatar
Zach Grant L1011jock
Technical Advisor
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:35 pm
Location: Indianapolis KEYE

Re: Horn AD

Postby Zach Grant L1011jock » Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:36 am

Tom,
I will tell you SB 1189 will never become an AD, the FAA has stated that unequivocally. There will probably be an AD related to the horn cracking, but it will certainly not reflect what the Piper SB says in it's present form. I really don't know how to say that any clearer!!! Everybody does NOT think SB 1189 will be an AD, including those folks in the FAA that write the ADs.

Zach

"Keep it above 5 feet and don't do nuthin dumb!"
User avatar
Zach Grant L1011jock
Technical Advisor
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:35 pm
Location: Indianapolis KEYE

Re: Horn AD

Postby Chief » Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:31 am

I have no idea whether any of this will be SB, AD or nothing at all. I do believe 1160 and 1189 will be addressed in similar fashions because they are have a close impact on each other. And to prove that point, the Torque Tube and the Horn are SB's. Hard to imagine they get separated as they move forward in whatever fashion they move forward.

AD's do impact the sale of a plane as do engine overhauls, condition of paint, interior, avionics, etc. Try and buy a Cessna 401 with out of time engines and a wing spar AD that has not been done. You can buy a $250,000 plane for $80,000. But that is just simple business. The seller suffers, the buyer benefits. The engines you may replace, they paint you can do or not do, same with avionics and interior, but the wing spar AD, you have to replace. No question!

All that said, and here is the bottom line, if you bought our Comanches new today, based on their performance and operating envelope, they would cost $400,000+. And remember, a new plane owner has to absorb not only the cost of a new plane but all AD's that follow. The best plane to own and fly is one that has been in operation for years. The AD's have been discovered and absorbed. There are no squawk free planes. AD's are a part of keeping planes safe. The key to all this, in my opinion is OEM support. And OEM does not mean just Piper, it could be any "Original Equipment Manufacturer" of any part on a Comanche. Webco makes a great teflon-coated landing gear conduit. They are the current OEM of that product. We need Webco to stay healthy. We need Lycoming to stay healthy. We need Piper to stay healthy. AD's should reflect and roll up under that philosophy in how they are addressed from the FAA and the product supplier. Approved parts for required fixes!

That is my take. Enforcement of all this an annual inspection and a sign-off on a logbook, all of which is required. The FAA enforces, we comply. Liability hangs in the balance. As long as you spend less than $400,000, consider yourself fortunate to have such a great plane for such a bargain.

User avatar
Chief
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:01 pm
Location: K9A4

Re: Horn AD

Postby tomburke1 » Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:38 am

All that said, and here is the bottom line, if you bought our Comanches new today, based on their performance and operating envelope, they would cost $400,000+.
I would say that a new Comanche today would sell for more then that. I think $550,000 or there abouts would be more accurate.
tomburke1
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 2:30 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale fl

Re: Horn AD

Postby tomburke1 » Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:43 am

 
tomburke1
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 2:30 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale fl
This topic was modified 5 years ago by ICS archives 2008-2018

   
Quote
Share: