|
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating: 
|
Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
The wrinkle does look scary. I'd love to hear what the mechanic has to say. I wonder if Cessna will make new wings for out planes? If so, will that reset the spare inspection clock?
|
|
#2
03-21-10, 09:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Looks kind of ugly
I must however say that I never understood the deal with the extra tanks. It's so 80's Normans Cay and Cat Island. I can run for 6 hours / 900NM with reserve on regular tanks. How much more do you really need? As for the tips, they look cool, but take all that crap off and just put some micro VG's on and make it safe. Just my opinion 
|
|
#3
03-22-10, 12:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The plane came with the extended tanks. But I like having the truely redundant reserve fuel supply. I also like the high altitude performance, the short take off roll, the lower stall speed, the 450# increase in useful load, and the improved ride.
Of course...the newly revealed potential of the wings falling off kinda diminishes the appeal of the "improved ride". As for the winglets....again, the appeal is the improved performance. We'll see what the mechanics say. I've heard Cessna didnt use the best quality aluminum for their skins. Maybe the issue can be addressed by upgrading the skin. Wing Splints.... Spar extensions.... I dunno... Cole
|
|
#4
03-22-10, 01:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
What? Cessna didn't use good materials for the skins? Sounds like a law suit if it was an act of commission, and not just an act of omission.
|
|
#5
03-22-10, 05:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Cessna uses/used the industry standard for aluminum, 2024-T3, and the standard for construction.
The engineers didn't overbuild it to accomodate future after market modifications that may come along, such as wing tip fuel tanks and extended wing tips. And they certainly did not over engineer the wing that an individual would exceed the structural limitations imposed by the said non factory approved modifications. I'd like to know who has determined that Cessna used non conforming raw materials in its construction? Dave
|
|
#6
03-22-10, 07:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What???
I'm not an avid supporter of Cessna's customer support, prices or attitude toward the small airplane owner - especially in regard to the aging fleet.
However, I think it is out of line to accuse them of using substandard materials on hearsay. In our litigeous society that could have far reaching negative implications. I have not seen any evidence in my skymaster that the original construction used anything other than the standard accepted materials. By the way, it looks to me like a pretty solid airframe even though it has been flying for 43 years.
__________________
Jim Stack Richmond, VA
|
|
#7
03-22-10, 10:24 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Everybody relax....
I did not say Cessna used inadequate materials when they built the bird 23 years ago. I said that I had heard that Cessna didnt use the BEST material. We all know that part of the process of engineering is to find the lowest priced material that will meet or exceed the requirement for the job. There is no evil or malice in doing that. Thats simple common sense and makes the plane affordable. All I was saying is that there may be BETTER materials available to address the newly revealed areas in need of improvement....for a few planes. I am not an engineer. I am barely a pilot. I am not second-guessing ANYONE or pointing fingers or accusations as anyone. Thats all I meant. Cole
|
Hybrid Mode
