RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
But the high prices = quality!!!!!!!!!
Oh no,.... make it stop.Yep hard to believe since Beech has all of that "quality" built in......
The most shocking part of that article is that they built 43 Barons in the timeframe stated.
That is rather interesting, I was wondering about that myself. Not sure if they had orders for sales on contract or were building them towards building value and profit at the company sale.
Barons are like $1.6MM now aren't they?
That is rather interesting, I was wondering about that myself. Not sure if they had orders for sales on contract or were building them towards building value and profit at the company sale.
Barons are like $1.6MM now aren't they?
I've had two new ones (one with 20 hours on it, the other still in a generic white paint scheme) come through my airport in the last year. WHO THE HELL IS BUYING THESE THINGS?!?
They don't build on speculation. The airframe isn't built unless it has a buyer.
The one thing that annoys me about Beech....stinking fuel bladders. WHY have they not gone to a wet wing after all these years?
The one thing that annoys me about Beech....stinking fuel bladders. WHY have they not gone to a wet wing after all these years?
Because I would much, much, much rather deal with a leaking bladder than a leaking wing.
Crashes might even be measurably safer.
I'll take a bladder change to a tank reseal job any day. Plus the bladder is safer in a crash.
I haven't heard any Piper owners complaining about tank maintenance like Beech folks (and I just got the estimate for the labor to do the bladders on the Baron.
My dad has owned the Lance since 1980. Never had any significant issues with the tanks.
I also don't see PA28s/PA32s bursting into flames any more or less than Beech planes.
There are people out there who have a 757 and buy one for their kid to fly, seriously, the amount of wealth the extremely wealthy have is incredible.
Pipers don't have a wet wing, they have a formed metal tank they screw into the structure as in integral component, no different in principle from any metal tank built into a wing that isn't structural.
Pipers don't have a wet wing, they have a formed metal tank they screw into the structure as in integral component, no different in principle from any metal tank built into a wing that isn't structural. Wet wing you build a wing section then seal off some of it to hold fuel. A Mooney is a wet wing sample unless someone gave up and installed STC bladders. Several Cessna wet wings too IIRC.
Please explain to me how these piper tanks are any different than a wet wing (other than you can take them off the wing).
http://www.hartwigfuelcell.com/remancherokee.php
Please explain to me how these piper tanks are any different than a wet wing (other than you can take them off the wing).
Yeah, but remember, this was in the transitional time during the sale between Raytheon and Textron. More things come into play with people trying to manipulate some advantage in a business deal. If the terms of the deal left the ability to produce extra airframes that affected how much the bottom line on exit was going to be regardless if they were sold or not, and the contracted value in the deal to buy factory stock was one that represented a profit to Raytheon stock holders, they would then build every airframe they could.
I know who buys 757s, Falcons, and Gulfstreams. But they are not the same people who tool around in piston twins.
My guess is those Barons are bought by various non-government actors such as drug carteils, and small government entities that convert them into surveilance platforms. I know that Diamond and Tecnam make a very brisk business in that exact area.
The stresses are distributed so that the minute movements are not happening between plates that hold fuel, but rather between the tank and its slot. This way the cell tank is less likely to leak than e.g. Mooney tank.
Of course Cherokee is not immute to leaks entirely, hence the business that you linked. I'm sure there are business that repair Cessna tanks as well, even though those are suspended inside a wing under a separate skin (well, used to be businesses: nowadays it's much cheaper to grab a tank off eBay).
I love me some PA-28 tanks. I've yet to spend a nickel on tank maintenance in the 6 years I've owned PA-28 variants, though I did also own a cessna 150 in that timeframe as well with similar results. I'm not sure the former qualify as wet wings since the tank is integral (i.e. not formed from wing spar sections, ergo not subjected to sealant cracking twisting or shear moments from aero loading), but I'll take them any day over stupid water trapping, dry rotting, quantity deceiving bladders.
Takes a lot of the wind out of the quality control argument out of the Certified/Experimental debate.
You should see the crap coming out of Cessna lately.
That piper tank is kinda dumb in that you hit a bird and it is striking the tank.
I hit a bird in the C177 and the leading edge can collapse into an empty space.
Still not as bad as some of the crap coming out of the garages and shacks.
Oh wait.....they're all the same company now.
You should see the crap coming out of Cessna lately.
yup.....and it's raining EA/B overcast.Still not as bad as some of the crap coming out of the garages and shacks.
This is like taxing corporations it just raises the price of the product. They should fine the CEO personally.
You haven't seen what is being "certified" out of "air plane factories".